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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s so nice to see the trolls refering to the political entity call IPCC as if it has credibility.
“Gee… that sounds like some other “scientists” I have read about recently.”
Ironic then that the UAH satellite temperature record, the subject of this post, has hidden source code that hasn’t been made available to the public, despite requests. Also – where’s the raw data?
“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.”
Hmm, so OK, then why plot the 3rd order polynomial to begin with in the first place?
Why not plot the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 6th order polynomials that are available in Excel?
Could it be that all other Excel polynomials show a leading positive coefficient, while only the 3rd order polynomial shows a leading negative coefficient?
Absolutely.
Misleding?
Absolutely.
Cherry picking?
Absolutely.
Never mind that a 3rd order polynomial has no predictive value whatsoever, at what level of statistical confidence does this 3rd order polynomial pass for it’s four coefficients?
Here’s a list of R^2 vs polynonial order (order, R^2, delta);
1 0.3520
2 0.3678 0.0158
3 0.3889 0.0211
4 0.3895 0.0006
5 0.3942 0.0047
6 0.3960 0.0018
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases per the AP:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20111103/D9QPH4J81.html
From this source apparently:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
Summation
After a short cooling trend despite poor siting practices, denial of FOIA requests, etc, etc.
We need to redistribute wealth now, NOW godammit NOW.
L Nettles says:
November 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Looks like Europe will have to redouble its efforts to pull the World into another recession.
L Nettles says:
November 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“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.”
All right! For the childrens sake; Start paying us, now. We can pass the bucks to our children, later;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
G. Karst;
Fighting cooling is going to require one of those geo-engineering projects, like putting big mirrors in (distant) orbit to put more sunlight into play. But where to direct it? The poles? The tropics? The ocean? Many studies will have to be funded, ASAP!
Gneiss says:
November 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“Have any IPCC scientists actually said anything like that?”
Aside from the fact that the IPCC only has a “core staff of 10 people” and is a governmental, not a scientific body, yes, the IPCC reports have said things very much like that. A couple examples are:
“Changes in climate extremes are expected as the climate warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activities, such as the use of fossil fuels. However, determining whether a specific, single extreme event is due to a specific cause, such as increasing greenhouse gases, is difficult, if not impossible.”
and
“it is not simple to detect a human influence on a single, specific extreme event. Nevertheless, it may be possible to use climate models to determine whether human influences have changed the likelihood of certain types of extreme events. For example, in the case of the 2003 European heat wave”
Both from AR4, WG1, p.696
Smoothed trend line starting to look like a sine wave.
Sorry for this additional post but I couldn’t stop myself. Is this the sort of stuff that our politicians listen to?
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ea14eufiEq8 ]
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. ”
The last scientific consensus has already done the work on this question. We can now just go back to the future!
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
L Nettles says:
November 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm
From Tom Nelson’s Blog
(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) – The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record,…..
________________________________________
That is a sure sign of global COOLING.
Everyone is running their heaters to stay warm! With the cost of energy rising only necessity has people turning on the heat as “Fuel Poverty” increases.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/18/u-k-citizens-face-increasing-fuel-poverty/
The UK is the hardest hit or at least the country with news coverage but with a real unemployment rate in the USA running between 20% to 22% for 2010, and high fuel costs, no one is wasting a penny on extra heat. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
It certainly is not a sign of Economic “prosperity” either, the GDP nose dived: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/update/01/images/fig1.jpg
DirkH, those are examples of the extreme-events analysis that i mentioned. My question to Roy was whether anyone had done something as silly as what he suggested, using an unexceptional one-month change in global temperature to claim evidence of climate change, in either direction.
Eric (skeptic) says:
November 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“Jeff Masters, Weather Underground” is an expert reviewer?
Jeff Masters is a dyed in the wool believer in CAGW. THAT makes him an “Expert Reviewer”
Although the current 2011 AMSU is about 0.56 cooler than 2010, it will tick up about 0.2DegC over the next few of days.
This La Nina is not accompanied by strong trade winds. What’s making this years Ts cooler than last is the waters just north of the Pacific Equator.
I can clearly see why there was widespread panic in 1988/89. people could really have imagined that the trend would continue.
What I cannot for the life of me understand, is why they cling to that decade+ old fear when we can clearly see it was not warranted. Is it really too hard to reassess your position? I do this all the time when I come across new data, or a plausible alternative explanation (to my own) is presented to me.
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
================================
The Japanese satellite says it’s Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa……
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Brian H says:
November 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I already have a thesis in mind. I would like to study the effects on living conditions if we have to move to the tropics in order to keep warm. Obviously we would have all possible available mod cons, so these should be included.
So, that would make it a hard research session in a gruelling tropical environment, say a beach in the south pacific, and using the sort of accommodation we would be able to mange by then, say a nice beach-front villa, or failing that , 5 star hotel.
Please send grant money fast!
Om my gosh! It’s a multi-decadal sinosoidal wave! Whoddathunkit? Almost as if there’s casual ups and downs about a stable equilibrium, that itself gently rises and falls across the millenia. Kinda like the casual bops and weaves of the Moon about the rotational axis of the Earth, as the Earth itself bobs and weaves about the plane of the ecliptic.
Interesting. I noticed last month from the 0-700m temp anomalies that there didn’t seem to be a particularly large sloshing of warm water to the west, which suggested that trades weren’t that strong and that consequently the amount of cold water upwelling in the east may not be abnormally high either. This could suggest that, rather than just the to and fro of Nino and Nina, we’re actually seeing reduced Pacific oceanic heat content, and that the upward spike in the middle of the year as per UAH may have been down to oceanic heat transfer to the atmosphere. Might this indicate a prolonged period of anomalously low SSTs ahead? Have I made any glaring errors in my reasoning here?
Why do you say it will rise 0.2C over the next few days, by the way?
Sorry for all the questions!
Should be interesting to see what happens when the Atlantic heads into its cool phase…
Roy Spencer says: November 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
JJThoms:
AMSU ch. 4 *failed* on Aqua, it wasn’ t “expunged” from the record. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. 🙂
Channel 4 was not the one I was referring to – it was channel LT the 1km temperature.
The data is no longer available from your discover site.
I understand that satellites die and you use another. However in the swap to AQUA many of the same-named channels have large errors compared with original. if you are measuring the temp at the same height why is there this error. For example the data for CH13 shows an error of up to 0.3C in 2002 see
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3TGf7juf3EM/TgYCVKXHwBI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/00YqMQ_RRGc/s1600/36km.jpg
Is it possible that the current qua temperatures have a possible 0.3C error – if not how can you prove it?
Thanks
as others have noted, it appears like a sine wave (going back further it does to IIRC). The hal-cycle appears to be 25 years, making the full cycle 50 years. I believe the full cycle has been estimated at 60 years (but cannot recall from where or by whom). If so, we may still be on the slow up-curve for another 5 years.
That would agree with my thoughts that the whole pattern is a sine wave with a 60 year cycle, but rising at between half and 1C a century (from way back before eeevil CO2 existed).
I use the full weight of my experience in this area (ie extremely little) to predict a very slow warming for another 5 years, and then a very slow cooling for 5 years, followed by increasingly fast cooling from about 2030 to 2040. In 2035 I confidently predict another ‘the ice age cometh’ scare from the descendants and students of the current scaremongers.
Funnily enough, that would be about 60 years from the last one. Accordingly, in 2048 I predict another warm scare starting, etc, etc. Fortunately I’ll be too old to care, but think of the grand-children!
James Hansen and his minions were pretty darn sure the global mean temperature would be more than 1°C higher in 2012 than it was in 1980 (referencing his graph used in his 1988 Congressional testimony). Now, 25 years since his models were run, the observed record shows his work was no where close to what really transpired. And yet they insist the skeptics have no handle on reality. What will it take for them to give the skeptics some credit for being more on the mark than the alarmists?
I would like to point out that the winter and summer olympics used to take place in the same year and only in recent times have they been offset by two years to each other.