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.
First, thanks Dr. Spencer for following and publishing this info. My one suggestion would that instead of a third order polynomial with no predictive value show 5, 10, 20 & 30 year moving averages. I realize that 30 years is now the standard def for climate but I’m not sure its a good number. I think it’s highly likely there are natural cycles longer than 30 years that are not now considered. I’d ask for 60 years but I’m willing to wait until the satellite data gets that long.
Jer0me says:
November 3, 2011 at 5:08 pm
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)….
_____________________________
Here is one reference and analysis: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
And another: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/157752-Ocean-oscillations-are-not-masking-global-warming-the-cooling-is-real
Woods Hole: New Study Reports Large-scale Salinity Changes in the Oceans
Saltier tropical oceans and fresher ocean waters near the poles – http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897
(Has the usual CAGW get pass peer review card)
Anthony is on Coast To Coast AM now! just listened to the segment. very good interview by George Noory
KnR says:
November 3, 2011 at 2:54 pm
you cannot tell anything form 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.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A good illustration of the overlap between comedy and tragedy. Just imagine what Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes and Aristophanes, Terance and Plautus could have done with material like this..
Phil R says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Eeew, honey is sticky. Couldn’t you just buy some honey with the credit card once you got there?
Sticky maybe, but tasty! Credit card or a pension, they both are honey magnets in the tropics.
Scottish Sceptic says:
November 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Just been reading up on death, famine, high grain prices war, beheadings,floodings the end of countries … during the sporer, dalton and Maunder minima.
Just in Scotland the 0.7C higher temperatures would be expected to reduce winter deaths by 5000 over the last decade – we’ve been extremely lucky.
Please don’t anyone celebrate this drop.0.3C drop is around 200 extra deaths this winter JUST IN SCOTLAND!
___________________________________
Unfortunately we are caught twix and between.
If it stays the same temperature or warms we get taxed to death and watch our civilization killed by taxes and energy starvation as our wealth is transfered to the “greener (dollars) pastures” of India, China, Africa and Brazil.
If it cools enough to kick a few butts so people notice and toss the politicians under the bus, the elderly and the ill will die.
Hypothermia or starvation, take your pick because those are the actual choices our politicians are giving us. We are in a war and we do not even know it. It is a war for who will control all the world’s resources and therefore holds all the power and we, the little people, are losing. CAGW and “Socialism” are just the circuses to divert our attention.
I give glimpse of the road to starvation in these comments (The whole discussion is good of course)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-766861
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767501
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767575
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559
I feel sorry for you.
@Gail Combs says:
November 3, 2011 at 10:50 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I fully agree with the points made regarding fuel povery and how cold will lead to extra deaths. The UK has the highest rate of winter mortality in developed Europe due to a combination of poor housing stock, damp weather, low pension income and high energy prices. I have posted similar points before, however, regretfully, I consider that we need a sustained period of cooling to bring this madness to an end.
I know that unfortunately this will cause suffering to many and regretfully there will be deaths (which could have been avoided) but if this eventually brings about a reversal of the UK’s present energy policy (similar policies being experimented elsewhere), it will in the long run be a good thing. If this leads to a reversal of policy eventually we will be putting an end to this misssery brought about by fuel poverty (because it is only a political reason as to why energy costs are high) which in tunr will lead to a better way of life for all and eventually the reduction in needless deaths etc.
“…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.”
LOL. Dish these phrases back at them. I love it!
We could also add in the phrase “consistent with the predictions”
e.g. The drop in global temperatures is consistent with the predictions of some crazy loon who hangs out in the subway and lives in fear of being eaten by a giant intergalactic mutant ice goat….
😉
Walter Dnes says:
November 3, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Looks like the ever-reliable “The Watts Effect” strikes again. It was first encountered in this forum when talking about low solar activity, which suddenly shot up…..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of COURSE it shot up.
Cycle 19 peak 31/2 to 4 years @ur momisugly 200: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl19.html
Cycle 4 peak 31/2 to 4 years @ur momisugly 140: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl4.html
Cycle 5 peak 31/2 to 4 years @ur momisugly 50: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl5.html
(Cycle 5 then went “flat”)
Cycle 24 “On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/
It has almost been four years and we see a spike in Sun Spot numbers as would be expected. The SIDC number is about 130, NOAA X 0.6 = about 120. http://www.landscheidt.info/images/lay_monthly.png
This aligns rather nicely with a low level cycle like Cycle 4 and not a high level cycle like Cycle 19. So as usual we will have to just wait and see if Cycle 24 stays at this level of activity or continues up. However the chances are still good it will be weaker than cycle 23. (peak @ur momisugly 175)
NOTE: Dr Svalgaard states: ” We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * “ http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=user/571
Bob Tisdale says:
November 3, 2011 at 3:41 pm
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.
I wouldn’t think that the mother nature cares much for my ‘straw in a churning tornado’ musings; but since you ask:
there are four or five apparently unrelated processes that are following similar trend for number of centuries, as the relevant data show ( the graph with the three of them CET, NAP and SSN is already overcrowded anyway ). For some of the links physics is clear but not for all. One coincidence lasting 350 years may be, but is unlikely to have three or four, so I suspect a common cause, which eventually ‘has’ to lead to the sun, governed by some kind of ‘natural variability law’, (in the graph represented by the blue line) derived from the CET.
As far as writing is concerned, it looks like that the two main combatants are rapidly running out of ammunition (CO2, TSI, UV,GCR etc), and when they do, the search for the true ‘natural variability’ will be ‘plat du jour’. I am certain that there will be someone out there with sufficient knowledge, expertise and the writing dexterity required.
For time being it’s pointless running into crossfire without suitable ‘body armour’ protection.
the graph in question: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
& left out
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.gif
and possibly
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Could I make a suggest with respect to the most appropriate scaling for these temperature anomally charts.
Since our interest in these anomallies concerns the possiblity that they might deviate to more than 2-3 degrees above the historical averages, would it not be most appropriate to havea scale that runs from -4 degrees to +4 degrees (or at least +/- 3) so that the true materiality of what we are observing is made more transparent?
Such a kerfuffle over CO2, enough already, we know the earth is cooling and the only possible remedy is to move the earth closer to the sun, but first we need to get rid of our freeloader (the moon). Oy gevalt what a schlep. Oy vey.
Geckko – I like that idea!
C’mon folks, we know we can’t control the weather. We adapt like Fred implied – sorry no funding for that one 🙂
Just like catastrophic warming, adaptation to catastrophic cooling would be great for all. A common goal to provide a shared vision for humanities struggle against the elements. the ‘green jobs’ stuff never seemed to stack up economically against the idea of simple adaptation to a real problem.
It looks like a 50 year cycle to me. Maybe the Hebrews were on to something with the jubilee cycle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
“NOTE: Dr Svalgaard states: ” We changed the way sunspots were counted way back in 1882. 17 years of counting both ways have shown that there is a simple proportionality between the old count and the new count, namely old = 0.6 * “ http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=user/571”
The link doesn’t take you to Svalgaard’s comment but even so it’s meaningless as you can compare the counts from the first to the second half of the 20th century and see there there were almost twice as many in the second half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
Geckko says:
November 4, 2011 at 3:40 am
While considering making the charts more appropriate for the size of the changes, I’d like to suggest that instead of the “Anomaly” from the established temperature of 1981 or whatever it is, we chart real temperatures. The issue is (according the the Warmists) is radiative delay due to increased absorption rate the atmosphere (by the introduction of more CO2), so we need to use the temperature band of the Earth in space. Space temperature is nominally 3 degrees Kelvin, and the Earth is at about 287.5 Kelvin, right?
Right now, we’re within a couple tenths of a degree of that number (give or take, depending on which measure you’re using). Since the measurements disagree by as much as half a degree, we can easily say that we are within the range of error of measurement, which means that we don’t even KNOW if we are above or below the normal temperature.
Even if we KNEW we were 0.11 degrees Kelvin above the normal temperature, the actual variance from the norm is only 0.038% above where we expect to be. How is that news? How is that statistically even relevant? Why are we spending one dime on a change of less than a departure from normal of less than four-ten-thousandths of a percent?
Even if we were a full degree above the “normal” temperature, that would still be only about a third of a percent difference. Glaciation periods are ten degrees cooler than that, and we KNOW that there have been periods of several degrees warmer.
If we charted the actual temperature of the planet, in kelvin, with all of the relevant deviations since the 1600s, using the full scale, it would look like a flat line with no trend at all, just a bit of bobble that would be smaller than the thickness of the line depicting it.
Using the anomaly difference based around the very top end of the scale is a bad way to depict the data. It’s as if someone were showing changes in the price of some commodity that costs $300, but only charting the change in the pennies, because the dollar amount is stable, and claiming that the cost is rising out of control because it went from $300.45 to $300.49 in a decade.
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
================
Gail Combs: 40% of school districts in the USA do not have recess due to concerns abou test scores and injury liability, and yet they have the gall to say our kids are being too active in the classroom? On the flip side, parents do not let their kids go outside due to a fear of abductions which is about as rational as a fear of lightning (and WAY LESS rational than a fear of cars) when you look at the statistics, and yet THEY have the gall to say they’ve done all they can?
Manfred: So cooling causes checkers?
Here in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. We have had an abnormally cold spring with temperatures some 10 degrees below normal .I have noticed that each of the last 3 springs have been colder and colder with winter temperatures and rain now extending into November.
Lew @ur momisugly 11:46 PM.
How do you know about the ice goat?
=============
“…taking a line from our IPCC brethren While any single months 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.”
HEH! And what REALLY gets our CAGW friends is that this statement is, in fact, TRUE!
—
A public service announcement for our CAGW friends who visit WUWT:
I hope you haven’t used any petroleum-based products or energy derived from petroleum or coal today – doing so would be hypocritical and just plain wrong. Please use alternatives. Thank you for your cooperation.
Doug Proctor says:
November 3, 2011 at 3:21 pm
The “standard” says polynomial regression has no predictive power (unless you’re trying to fit to a polynomial, I suppose). I don’t have a good example, apparently few people make that mistake or even illustrate it. One that does is worth reading, even though the topic is an attack on climate Deniers (capitalized!). Mike Kaulbars takes his May 2008 temperature data and with a 2nd order polynomial shows the temperature should drop to -90° (C, I think), by the end of June.
http://greenfyre.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/may2008-four2.jpg
The basic problem is that each term in a polynomial fit has little to no connection to the physics behind the data. Outside of the math to force a fit, there’s nothing to constrain the values of each term outside of the fitted period.
Another site I found has an example of what can happen when you use to high an order. In this case it was to demonstrate that if the order equals the number of data points, you can make a fit that goes through each and hence have a r^2 = 1.000 despite being a meaningless fit.
http://www.arachnoid.com/sage/graphics/polynomial_regression/pgraph2.png
Scottish Sceptic says:
November 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Please don’t anyone celebrate this drop.0.3C drop is around 200 extra deaths this winter JUST IN SCOTLAND!”
No braveheart will even notice–unless one of the 200 is a single-malt distiller.
From a longer-term perspective, all we’ve really had since the 1998 super El Nino is an elevated plateau with a ~44-month oscillation. For a meaningful dowturn to occur, the global anomalies would have to go negative and stay there for a protracted stretch of time. Next year will be critical in confirming/dashing cyclical expectations. Nature can be full of surprises!
Random Thesis says:
November 3, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Dont forget that there can be many curves summed up. And you know what that means. You could even get a …..square!