UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2011: +0.11 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for October, 2011 dropped , to +0.11 deg. C (click on the image for the full-size version):
The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.
Here are this year’s monthly stats:
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 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204
2011 8 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155
2011 9 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178
2011 10 +0.114 +0.169 +0.059 -0.056
The Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and tropics have all cooled substantially, consistent with the onset of another La Nina, with the tropics now back below the 1981-2010 average.
[Since AMSR-E failed in early October, there will be no more sea surface temperature updates from that instrument.]
For those tracking the daily AMSU 5 data at the Discover website, the temperature free-fall continues so I predict November will see another substantial drop in global temperatures (click for large version):
WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?
…taking a line from our IPCC brethren… While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world.
“…taking a line from our IPCC brethren… While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A truism if there ever was one!!
Mike McMillan says:
November 3, 2011 at 12:15 pm
> “The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data” has a half-cycle of around 25 years.
A periodic polynominal? Well, Roy did say “for entertainment purposes only.”
You might see how the polynomial does a few multiples out in either direction. That x^3 term is a killer.
I am still amazed anyone thinks we can determine the average global change in temperature when all we come up with is changes like 0.11 degrees or even 0.5 degrees. Surely claiming this is anything other than statistical garbage is nonsense.
Jeff Wiita,
“No. Every 4-years there is a presidential election in America. That is the real cause for AGW”
You sayin’ somethin’ about the emissions of the media and politicians?? 8>)
JJThoms:
AMSU ch. 4 *failed* on Aqua, it wasn’ t “expunged” from the record. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. 🙂
G. Karst says:
November 3, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“IF catastrophic cooling were to become the prime perceived threat. What would the best mitigation method be, to warm the earth? How could we best force AGW? Just pondering… is all. ”
Don’t try CO2. It might actually cool the Earth (very slightly, says Nasif Nahle; I don’t have the slightest clue whether he’s right, but his argument is interesting).
http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
“How to force AGW?” The answer is obvious. Since burning oil and coal produce particulates which reflect sunlight back into space, we must begin to push even harder to convert to clean energy sources like wind and solar. Just kidding… but they won’t be.
Gneiss says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“Roy Spencer writes,
“…taking a line from our IPCC brethren… While any single month’s drop in global temperatures cannot be blamed on climate change, it is still the kind of behavior we expect to see more often in a cooling world.”
Have any IPCC scientists actually said anything like that? ”
see
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2011/09/12/floods-droughts-wildfires-hurricanes-yes-there-is-a-climate-change-connection/
linking to
http://climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/
Expert Reviewers:
■Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
■Jerry Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research
■Jeff Masters, Weather Underground
■Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Gneiss says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm
=========
Of course they never said anything like that, they know who signs their checks.
Roy was playing with their usual mantra.
at this very moment I have the heater on in sydney 4 weeks till summer ??????
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt predicted a deep Gleissberg minima around 2030 – similar to the Maunder minimum. From his paper – New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? – he wrote this long before the recent press releases by the solar scientists stating the sun was entering a period of decreased activity.
“We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. The outcome of this further long-range climate forecast solely based on solar activity may be considered to be a touchstone of the IPCC’s hypothesis of man-made global warming.”
There is certainly time for many alive today to test his predictions.
From what I can find Dr Landscheidt has many successful predictions verified by later observation against the IPCC’s record of removing web pages and posting error messages to hide the link removal from numerous failed predictions – some of which were so stupid you’d have to doubt the integrity of an organisation that would allow them in the first place.
Dr Spencer’s research will play a pivotal role in monitoring the future.
The recent BEST debacle demonstrates that the IPCC et al will arrive at a “it’s worse than we thought” message no matter what the data shows.
Mike McMillan says:
November 3, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data” has a half-cycle of around 25 years, not too far off the very roughly 30 year half-cycle we’ve seen since the end of the Little Ice Age. It also has an upward slope of 1.6 °C per century. Not too bad a fit for the short period of satellite data that we have.
__________________________________
It is SOooo nice to see a curve fit instead of the ever popular CAGW straight line heading for the sky.
Thank you Dr. Spencer
The Olympic cycle is amplifying too, suggesting positive feedbacks. The computer-generated fireworks at the Beijing opening ceremony in 2008 added to the cooling in the models, and did you see the effect the flame had on Cypress Mountain near Vancouver in 2010, even causing El Nino of last year to be Worse Than We Thought?
Looking back, the hi-tech flame the Japanese generated at Nagano in 1998 was particularly effective. Perhaps we can expect another Super El Nino in 2014 due to the Caucasus oil-fed flame in Sochi, Russia?
I tell thee, there’s a paper in this. The trouble will be getting it funded and through peer review past the vested Green interests, as it’s Greek solar power that gets the flame started…
From Tom Nelson’s Blog
(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) – The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
…
The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries – China, the United States and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.
It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.
…
“Really dismaying,” said Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University. “We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren.”
you cannot tell anything from one off events you need 10 years or was it 12 , or 15 ,or 17 or 30 or 60 years of data to be certain, expect when it can be tortured to get what you need they you hardly need any data or to be frank you can just make it up , this is after all climate science.
Do you think will be worse drop temp nov to jan?
I predict that Cuba and the South Pacific will have a great winter vacation season. Euro’s galore!
D. Cohen says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:46 pm
This is OT, but thought it was worth posting anyway…. about the fraud committed by the psychology Professor Stapel
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html?_r=1&ref=health
….. Really, it seems like the only major difference between this area of psychology and climate science is that no politicians and activists have yet gotten involved in trying to push their own agendas.
____________________
There is no difference!
You forgot about the drugs pushed on school children whether the parents approve or not!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/readings/publicinterest.html
(I recently read it is now up to 20% of male children drugged)
That is just ONE drug and what is worse it is the TEACHER that is the one “identifying” the child in need of the drug. There have even been court battles between the schools and parents over medicating their kids. http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/drugging_our_children/
Also see: http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/drugging_our_children/
From my point of view the worse part of this is the children identified as needing to be drugged are the bright inquisitive kids bored to death with “No Child Left Behind” These are the kids who would be our next generation of leaders if they were not drugged out of their minds and irreparably harmed if not killed.
(Sorry this is one of my HOT BUTTONS even though I have no kids)
D. Cohen, thanks for the NYT reference. I especially like it when they say:
Gee… that sounds like some other “scientists” I have read about recently.
You say the 3rd order polynomial is for “entertainment purposes only” and has no use in predictions. Could you please explain why standard mathematical analysis, especially where one seems to show semi- or pseudo-sinusoidal behaviour of the type we might expect in a “natural” system, is not appropriate for serious consideration?
It is assumed that the multiplicity of factors creating climate changes in general and temperature changes in particular, are so complex and interactive that no “simple” expectation is reasonable. Why is this?
D. Cohen says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:46 pm
————————————–
I’m looking forward to the day there’s an article like that about AGW.
One could use that same article, just change the names and the papers!
DirkH, “Jeff Masters, Weather Underground” is an expert reviewer? Expert in what? I looked at the first page, Meehl has added his misleading graphic showing lots of new record highs compared to record lows which are not adjusted for UHIE and site effects. A cooling bias, such as a growing tree, is unlikely to cause new record lows. At the bottom of the page they have the magically moving “probability distribution” as if “global warming” has more to do with such completely fabricated curve shapes and shifts than weather. Very little science to put it charitably.
________________________________
And I am sitting in the sunny south, well North Carolina with my heater on. October should have highs ~ 70F to 75F ( ~20 – 24C) and lows ~45 to 55F (7 – 14C) (I am trying to read off a graph)
It is NOT supposed to be in the 30’s to 40’s (F) with freeze warnings darn it.
M.A.Vukcevic says: “North Atlantic’s ‘Natural variability’ suggests rapid cooling…”
Have you written a post or paper about the “North Atlantic Precursor” yet, or do you intend to continue to leave us in the dark? Is the “Natural Variability Law” something new? Mother Nature may feel obligated to break it, you know.
Off topic: Seth Borenstein posted an article regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the state of the world economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/jump-global-warming-gases_n_1074482.html