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):
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tim Folkerts:
I see you are still trolling and address your nonsense to me at August 3, 2011 at 8:38 am.
Science tries to find empirical evidence that refutes a hypothesis then amends the hypothesis in the light of any such evidence. Failure to find such evidence is taken as support for the hypothesis.
Pseudoscience assumes anything which does not dispute a hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis is right. It ignores evience which refutes the hypothesis.
You are wasting space on this thread with pseudoscience.
Report back on when you have amended the AGW-hypothesis such that the amended hypothesis is not refuted by the missing ‘hot spot’, the “missing heat”, the disapearance of “committed warming”, the failure of global temperature to rise over at least the last decade, and etc.
Richard
henry@ur momisugly Tim
Sorry Tim
you have not yet grasped the concept of absorption and re-radiation.
try going back to read all my posts on this thread.
How about this:
From where I stand in the African sun
I have noticed a considerable difference in the amount of heat on my skin,
from the sun, when the humidity is, say 25%
or when it is, say, 75%.
How would you explain that?
davidmhoffer says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:37 pm
David,
An exceptional post. Thanks very much.
Regards,
AB
@Tim Folkerts
August 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
[“The assumption that a trace gas can contribute significantly to the Greenhouse Effect is all they have.”
NO!
It is no “assumption — it is a theory supported by facts. Trace gases not only CAN contribute to the Greenhouse effect — they ARE the greenhouse effect! They keep the earth significantly warmer than it would be without those trace gases. I disagree with Smokey about a number of things, but even he admits that CO2 (and CH4 and H2O) help warm the earth. It is just a question of how much warming (and then the extent of the effect of that warming on the world).
Now, some extremist certainly overplay the extent of the warming and the extent of the damage. But ignoring the science of the greenhouse effect will not turn it into “an assumption”.]
Tim,
YES!
Read what I wrote. The key word is ‘significantly’. This is the assumption.
I also suggest you read the excellent posts by davidmhoffer and HenryP.
Yes, individual CO2 molecules can absorb and re-emit radiation in the relevant wavelengths. Yes, there should therefore be a theoretical contribution by CO2 and the other radiative gasses to the Greenhouse Effect. The assumption being made by pro-cAGW commenters is that Arrhenius was correct in a quantitative sense. He predicted a 4 deg C (some say 6) rise in global temperature for a doubling of CO2 (‘climate sensitivity’). You would be hard-pressed to find any ‘warmist’ who would agree with this today, although the IPCC best guess is still 3 deg C. Bear in mind that radiation is not heat – as davidmhoffer so eloquently points out. That does not deter several commenters from confusing the two.
The problem occurs because a ‘theoretical contribution’ somehow magically becomes a ‘catastrophic’ (IPCC description, not mine…) contribution from the warmists. The contribution from CO2 could be 1% (ie insignificant) or – if you live in realclimate (or Kiehl & Trenberth 97) world – 26% for the dry atmosphere, which would definitely be significant. If you say the contribution is 1%, then we are in agreement. If, however, you say 26%, then you need to ask yourself some searching questions:
Firstly, the GE is approximately 33 deg C. You can choose your own number if you disagree. As the global temperature has increased by 0.8 deg C in 160 years since 1850 (the start of accurate data according to the IPCC), then the GE in 1850 was 32.2 deg C (your number less 0.8).
1850: 26% of 32.2 deg C is 8.3 deg C. This with a CO2 level of 280ppm.
2010: 26% of 33 deg C is 8.58 deg C. This with a CO2 level of 392ppm.
How do you explain the fact that a 40% increase in CO2 (let alone all the other radiative gasses) has apparently led to an increase in global temperature of less than 0.8 C? I say less than because the actual portion of the 0.8 C rise due to CO2 is not known! Causation-ists ‘assume’ that all the rise is due to CO2. All we can say is that the 0.8 C rise has happened at the same time as the 40% rise in CO2. It is entirely possible that only 0.28 C is due to CO2 (which would lead to a climate sensitivity of appx 0.7 C). To indulge in saying that all of the rise is due to CO2 is to deny that natural variation exists.
How do you explain this anomaly? Negative feedbacks? Well, in that case Arrhenius was still wrong. Whatever feedbacks occur will negate the effect of CO2 so the catastrophe is averted and we can save lots of money. Thermal inertia lag (or the silly ‘oil tanker’ analogy)? No. There is no evidence or logic for this argument. If the oil tanker takes so long to turn, why is it now turning the other way with the rudder still applied in the original direction?
Basically, Tim, you are going to have to provide some evidence (real-world, not models) or proof that CO2 and the other radiative trace gasses can significantly increase global temperature.
If you can’t, then all the pro-cAGW supporters have is an assumption. Quite simply, the observed data does not support the ‘theory’. The only ‘ignoring’ being done here is by those that have placed belief above objectivity.
By the way, I did not include H2O in my ‘trace gas’ statement, as I was referring to CO2. H2O is by far and away the most dominant and plentiful greenhouse gas, but the only part it plays in the radiative forcing debate is that it can absorb long wave radiation. This makes it able to transfer heat by conduction, not radiation. It is certainly not a trace gas as far as the GE is concerned.
Anyway, I look forward to your evidence that CO2 can significantly contribute to the GE.
Regards,
AB
Roger Knights says “What he (a different Roger) meant (obviously) was, “a change in the CO2 level was not involved.”
That is an incorrect assertion as well;
Speaking of the role of CO2 in past warming/cooling;
“The crucial fact was that a slight warming would cause the level of greenhouse gases to rise slightly. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as the vast Arctic tundras warmed up, the bogs would emit more CO2 (and another greenhouse gas, methane, also measured in the ice with a lag behind temperature). The greenhouse effect of these gases would raise the temperature a little more, which would cause more emission of gases, which would… and so forth, hauling the planet step by step into a warm period. Many thousands of years later, the process would reverse when the sunlight falling in key latitudes weakened. Bogs and oceans would absorb greenhouse gases, ice would build up, and the planet would slide back into an ice age. ”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#STL
Richard,
You seem to be under the false impression that I (and other people who dabble with the science behind global temperatures) attribute all warming to anthropogenic effects (and specifically to CO2). That is not at all my position. It is logically and scientifically sound to hypothesize that several different factors all contribute to an observed phenomenon (in this case, that CO2, solar cycles, ocean cycles, changes in cosmic rays, etc might all play a role).
I think we both reject the hypothesis: “The level of CO2 is the only factor affecting global temperatures .”
I accept the hypothesis: “The level of CO2 is a factor affecting global temperatures.”
The theory of GHGs and the correlations of Temperature & CO2 both support this hypothesis. Since as you said “science tries to find empirical evidence that refutes a hypothesis” what science can you present that refutes the hypothesis that increasing CO2 is one cause (out of perhaps many causes) that contributes to global warming?
“According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Arfur,
I enjoyed reading your well-expressed opinions. I suspect we are not so so far apart on our views.
I am very much up in the air as the to the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. I doubt the highest estimates are correct. I even more strongly doubt the sensitivity is zero.
To me, the simplest evidence the GHG’s have some effect on energy balance, and hence on temperature, is this graphic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg With no GHG’s the top curve would be smooth and the bottom curve would be basically zero. If people understand the graph, I think they will have to admit to at least SOME effect of GHGs.
The question of “significance” has at least two meanings. There is a very clear statistical significance of temperature to CO2 over the last 60 years (and I am sure over the last 200 years as well, but I have not actually done the calculations). That is a very different question to practical significance. The degree of practical significance attributable to warming depends a lot on who you are. If you live in cold climates, a little warming is probably a good thing for health and agriculture. I personally think many scientists have done a disservice to the science by getting too caught up in the hype (ie becoming “alarmists”).
Bystander says:
What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).”
Henry@ur momisugly Bystander
1) ABSORB ENERGY?
you have not yet grasped the concept of absorption and re-radiation.
try going back to read all my posts on this thread.
2) How would you know the change in the outgoing radiation was caused by an increase in CO2 and not an increase in H2O or O2/Ozone (that also absorb at 14-15 um)?
3) The study you quote does not tie up that well with my random sample of 15 weather stations from all over the world
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Maxima:Means:Minima= 9:3:1
which shows that warming is not caused by an increase in GHG’s
Someone has to be wrong?
4) please go back to skeptical science and ask them specifically why they always delete all my entries there?
Tim Folkerts says:
“There is a very clear statistical significance of temperature to CO2 over the last 60 years…”
Not really: click
Bystander,
I don’t think anyone disputes that CO2 and CH4 have increased and that they will absorb outgoing IR and thereby affect the temperature of the stratosphere.
However the stratosphere cooled quite noticeably in the late 20th century, in my opinion far far beyond the miniscule cooling that could have been provoked by more CO2 or more CH4 on their own.
As it happens the increase in CO2 and CH4 coincided with an active sun, lower global albedo, more solar shortwave energy into the oceans (for CO2 outgassing or reduced absorption) and an energised biosphere so it may well be that increases in CO2 and CH4 were mostly if not all natural anyway.
Now we have greatly increased human emissions but the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may be warming a little. That cannot happen under AGW theory so where does that leave you and the misleadingly named scepticalscience ?
The more likely explanation is that an active sun results in a cooler stratosphere and a less active sun results in a warmer stratosphere. I know that is counter to the established science but it would explain an awful lot including the reason why the jets moved poleward when the sun was more active. To get poleward shifting jets there has to be a cooling of the stratosphere and a rising of the tropopause and the jets moved poleward during the MWP too when the sun was more active and equatorward when the sun was less active during the LIA.
So we have a plausible well evidenced natural explanation for observations with CO2 counting as pretty much irrelevant compared to the natural changes.
The hurdle I need to overcome is as to whether stratospheric temperature changes really are of opposite sign to that normally expected from solar variations.
In that respect I refer to some recent comments by Joanna Haigh who suggested just such a possibility though I accept that we still await confirmation.
To my mind so many puzzling things fit together if that were to be the case that I am reasonably confident.
I see that there is a slight difference between my response to Bystander and that of HenryP.
I do of course accept Henry’s contention that GHGs having absorbed more energy immediately reradiate and by my account the reradiation is then converted to latent heat from more evaporation over the oceans for a zero or near zero effect on equilibrium temperature because the oceans control global air temperatures.
Friends:
Please stop feeding the trolls.
Richard
Richard,
Having read many of your posts here, I hold you in seriously high regard. However, I cannot in all conscience (see how I managed to get the word ‘science’ in there…?) step back from a discussion when Tim is at least appearing to present a balanced argument. So here goes…
Tim,
Unfortunately I’m not so sure we are as close as you imply! But at least we can chat about it…:)
I suspect many people are ‘up in the air’ about climate sensitivity! Unfortunately the sales pitch to Joe Public was not one of moderated thought, but one of absolute surety. If the original claims had been investigated using observed data instead of model output, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the position of continuously downgrading the estimates. I agree the likelihood of a sensitivity of zero is incorrect. What I am not prepared to do is guess!
The skepticalscience graph you showed relates to radiation, not temperature. I’ve already expressed my thoughts on this. Again, it is an assumption to automatically believe the latter is a consequence of the former in any significant sense
As for ‘significance’, you say:
[“The question of “significance” has at least two meanings. There is a very clear statistical significance of temperature to CO2 over the last 60 years (and I am sure over the last 200 years as well, but I have not actually done the calculations). That is a very different question to practical significance. The degree of practical significance attributable to warming depends a lot on who you are. If you live in cold climates, a little warming is probably a good thing for health and agriculture. I personally think many scientists have done a disservice to the science by getting too caught up in the hype (ie becoming “alarmists”).”]
The statistical significance you refer to may be true, but ponder this: The 0.8C rise in temperature seen (HadCRUT) between 1950 and today (60 years) is not unique. Although the data does not go back 200 years, it does go back 160 years. There was a 0.45C rise in about 4 years between 1875 and 1879. Was that due to CO2? Then there was a 0.8C rise from 1965 to 1998. Was that due to CO2? Both were followed by a sharp cooling period. Was that due to CO2? The lack of further warming since 1998 also needs to be investigated. If CO2 was the cause of your 60-year warming period, why has there been no increase in 13 years? You may answer ‘natural variation of some sort’. However, this then leads to an anomaly: How do you know the latest warming is due to CO2 and not the others? If they are all due to CO2 then does that mean natural variation only applies to cooling, not warming?
I was not referring to practical significance in the way you describe. It was a ‘worthy of attention’ description. The IPCC would describe the radiative forcing effect as making a significant difference to the global temperature. A 0.8C rise in global temperature (and not currently increasing) in 160 years which may or may not be due to CO2 does not seem to me to be significant enough to justify the alarmism, vitriol and monetary outlay.
ps, still waiting for the evidence…:)
pps, I wholeheartedly agree with your final sentence!
Regards,
Arfur
Tim,
Errata. In the paragraph on ‘significance’ I stated: “Then there was a 0.8C rise from 1965 to 1998.”
The sentence should have read “Then there was a 0.8C rise from 1910 to 1945.”
Apologies for poor proof reading!
Arfur
Earlier I asked this question:
How about this:
From where I stand in the African sun
I have noticed a considerable difference in the amount of heat on my skin,
from the sun, when the humidity is, say 25%
or when it is, say, 75%.
(all else being kept more or less equal)
How would you explain that?
It appears Tim did not answer my question.
Anybody else who figured it out?
Hint: look at the infra red spectrum of water vapor
Does this UAH graph include temperature data from urban areas? If so, then it is also adding in UHI and as such, isn’t really showing the true warming.
Any way UAH can ‘spot map’ only the rural areas of the globe? I wonder if it’s possible to go through UAH’s satellite data and pick out only the rural areas. This would give (in my opinion) the true temperature record of the earth because you’d get rid of UHI and massage artifacts.
Ocean acidification = panic, don’t just seat there !!! Let me clarify few fats: 1] water is not acidic until the pH gets below seven. 2] needs to bring acidity from 1000 planets equal to earth; to drop from 8,3 to pH7,3 which would be still alkaline. 3] pH7,3 would have being much better environment for fish, coral and everything living in the sea. 4] alkalinity is much more harmful for everything living in the ocean than acidity. 5] carbon doesn’t create acidity, but nitrogen / sulphur does. 6] all the rainforest creeks / rivers are acidic, not CO2. 7] some acidity is essential to wash into the sea and soften the high alkalinity. 8] every year lots of potassium, magnesium, lime, ash get washed into the sea, all those things are increasing alkalinity. 9] lots of chlorine, bleach and products with bleach in it get washed into the sea and are increasing alkalinity above tolerable level. The propaganda is not just wrong on everything, but back to front
What is the name on English for who tells opposite than the truth? Because they are obsessed to mislead for CO2; lots of things that are harmful and can be prevented, are overlooked = they are premeditated crimes. For those real crimes to be exposed, logon http://www.stefanmitich.com.au Pretending of solving imaginary problems to cover up real problems, used to be illegal. By badmouthing CO2, they legalized real crimes in progres to the environment and humanity
July broke or tied nearly 9000 heat records:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/08…ews-july-heat/
http://downloads.thedaily.com/ui-images/2011/08/05/080611-news-july-heat-map-day-v-662w.jpg
http://downloads.thedaily.com/ui-images/2011/08/05/080611-news-july-heat-map-night-v-662w.jpg
No Global Warming going on here….
REPLY: As your brethren are so fond of angrily pointing out, weather is not climate, which you are conflating. You confuse absolute data points with trends… just like all the caterwauling last year over the Russian heat wave from a blocking high. Even NOAA said it had everything to do with weather and was not attributable to global warming.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/peer-reviewed-paper-2010-russina-heat-wave-mostly-natural/
Your point is therefore, pointless and flaccid. – Anthony
Henry@Brian
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/winters-are-getting-colder-in-pretoria-bring-back-the-global-warming-please
What do you think can we do to bring back the global warming, please?
Warming good. Cooling bad. I hope AGW is correct, despite its flaccid science. cAGW is, of course, utter nonsense, on purely economics grounds.