UAH Global Temperature Update for Nov. 2011: +0.12 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for November, 2011 remained about the same as last month, at +0.12 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 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054
2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024
Since last month I predicted another temperature fall for November, which did not occur, I will admit that I should have followed my own advice: don’t try predicting the future based upon the daily temperature updates posted at the Discover website.
FYI, I’m making progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working.
[Reminder: Since AMSR-E failed in early October, there will be no more sea surface temperature updates from that instrument.]
Bill Illis says:
December 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Speaking for myself only, I expressed surprise at the fact that November 2011 didn’t pan out a little cooler than October 2011.
So the comparison between this La Nina and a super La Nina is irrelevant.
The relevant comparison would be the effects of this La Nina in October to it’s effects in November (or making allowances for the 7 month lag, March 2011 compared to April 2011)
The former says November should have been cooler. The latter indicates November should have been slightly warmer.
Ed Scott says: “…Russian scientists have discovered hundreds of plumes of methane gas, some 1,000 meters in diameter, bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. Scientists are concerned that as the Arctic Shelf recedes, the unprecedented levels of gas released could greatly accelerate global climate change.”
Methane is constantly bubbling up from offshore vents and has been doing so for thousands of years. One such vent exists about two miles off Santa Barbara:
In 1982, the innovative Seep Containment Project was developed by ARCO, Mobil, and several other partners to capture the free-flowing gas off Coal Oil Point. Two 50-foot high steel pyramids were positioned on the ocean floor over this seep. These giant tent structures are used to capture escaping oil and gas from the ocean bottom. Weighing in at a massive 350 tons each and measuring 100 feet on each side, they cover one of the seeps’ major vent areas.
…The steel pyramids have successfully captured natural gas before it rises to the surface. The gas …was initially …an amount roughly equal to the hydrocarbon emissions of more than 35,000 cars driving in and around Santa Barbara each day.
http://www.venocoinc.com/natural_seeps.html
Alan Statham says:
“Another thrilling installment! I can’t wait for next month’s!”
You’ll get it here. And don’t worry about the polynomial fit. Just watch the direction.
BTW, where’s that runaway global warming? Still hiding out somewhere?
There is a consistent (constantly inconsistent?) variation of +/- 0.2 degree month-to-month variation of global temperature as measured by satellite since records began in 1979.
Dr Spencer: Assume you can specifically calculate this variation and confirm its presence at the present date under actual measurements, does this mean that ANY and EVERYproxy temperature calculation by any proxy at any time in the past must be presented within a comparable temperature “variation” band?
That is, if “real measured global temperatures” swing by +/- 0.20 degrees every month of every year, then EVERY past proxy of temperatures by any method or any process at any year (or month) in the past MUST begin with a recognition of an irregular “global” irregularity of the temperature that the proxy is supposedly measuring.
True?
If so, then every proxy study of past temperatures cannot derive any conclusion about past temperature values unless that study detects (determines ?) a variation greater than 0.2 (plus 1,2, or 3 std deviations of ??? amounts) a change from the baseline temperature.
To TheFlyingOrc. Sorry, I have no idea what causes the ups and downs of temperatures. Except that when we have an El Nino temperatures seem to be high, and when we have a La Nina temperatures seem to be low. But I am sure there are all sorts of other things going on.
“Phil. says:
December 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Dale says:
December 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Looking at the RSS data, the lower stratosphere has been steady since ~1995. Isn’t an increased greenhouse effect meant to lower stratosphere temps?
Yes but the lower stratosphere is dominated by ozone which has been going down, the upper stratosphere is dominated by CO2 which is where the temps are decreasing.”
Sorry Phil I’m not sure about that. There’s plenty of data showing all four stratosphere layers have been steady, not just the lower.
A follow up question, if ozone was decreasing, temps in the stratosphere would also drop. So if you’re right and ozone is decreasing, that would mean to maintain a steady temperature series in the lower stratosphere the greenhouse effect element needs to be opposite. Does that mean the greenhouse effect is lessening to allow lower stratospheric temps to increase the same amount as decreased ozone is reducing it?
I never put much into this La Niña being stronger than last year. The SOI last winter was one of the highest ever recorded for the winter season. Only 1917/18 and 1955/56 edged it out. Most of the time when you have a 2-winter La Niña, the 2nd year is weaker than the first. 2nd consecutive La Niña winters since 1950 (based on MEI) include 1950/51, 1962/63, 1971/72, 2008/09. All of those were weaker than the La Niña of the preceding winter. Now there is uncertainty because history can always take a different course. And if next winter turns into a La Niña as well, that could mean a stronger or weaker La Niña than last year for the remainder of this winter… but we won’t know until it’s over. The three cases of 3 consecutive winters of La Niña since 1950 are: 1954/55-1956/57, 1973/74-1975/76, and 1998/99-2000/01. In the first and last cases, the 2nd year was the strongest of the three with the third year the weakest. In the 70s case, the 2nd year was the weakest of the 3 with the 1st year the strongest. As far as solar influence.. it’s hard to say. The 50s event began right after the solar minimum and the 70s event was right around the solar minimum as well. The late 90s event centered around the solar maximum (March 2000). But it really could go in either direction. In any case, 2012/13, using past statistics and analogs, is very unlikely to be an ENSO neutral winter. It will almost certainly be either an El Niño winter or a 3rd La Niña winter, with chances about equal among those two.
Pardon me asking here, but what do we think is going on with the sunspot count? Down to the 40s. Is this just the normal volatility expected within the predicted cycle, or is it becoming unusual?
So regarding the methane hydrates, from my understanding they are from a source that are in a geological time dependent system that is measured in years in the million.
If we are to worry about the Methanes ejected from the sediments in the near shore where temperatures are supposedly changing and the reason for these ejections. Why would they not have been ejected in the many warming spells in the past. There is absolutely no contention that it has been both warmer and colder on the near past, geologically speaking.
Do you as I do get the feeling that this is just a further bout of needless hysteria. Let’s all get a life and stop wanting to feel guilty for being good at adaption and environmental utilisation.
Wow Roy, that’s serious. Tell John I hope his recover is swift and complete. I’m sure the same is from other here at wuwt.
Bill Illis says:
December 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“Please check out the factual information before posting scary stories from now on.”
Now wait a minute! I’ve got popcorn on.
“The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel)”
Dr Spencer! I feel sure a nice person like you has sent an explanation to the CRU. Some people there seem to have trouble with Excel!
Presumably the CH4 is natural in origin? If so, isn’t it ‘Carbon Neutral’ (in other words, non-taxable)?
“BTW, where’s that runaway global warming? Still hiding out somewhere?” – Smokey, come out from under the table. You seem to have a morbid fear of some fictional monster.
Sorry guys, that still looks like warming at the rate of about 0.13C / decade to me….
UAH Global Temperature Update for Nov. 2011: +0.12 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for November, 2011 remained about the same as last month, at +0.12 deg.
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 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054
2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024
Thank you.
There is a plot of the sea level change for the last 18 years and if one subtracts the linear function of 3.2 mm per year from the data an oscillation becomes visible that is also visible in the UAH data. The main frequency can be analysed as the synodic tide frequency of Mercury/Earth.
This can be seen in this graph.
The blue summation curve of relevant solar tide functions in that graph can also be compared with the above UAH data:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_r_11.gif
What does it mean if relevant solar tide effects appear time coherent as well in the terrestrial temperatures and in the global sea level oscillation?
V.
Please don’t forget to update the web-widget both with the new graph and with the November number. It’s still showing October as the one point in a steep descent.
rgb
Robert Brown says:
December 16, 2011 at 6:08 am
Please don’t forget to update the web-widget both with the new graph and with the November number. It’s still showing October as the one point in a steep descent.
Done in this graph.
V.
Bill Illis says:
December 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm
The UAH numbers will get into the negatives in short order.
Current AMSU temperatures seem to be confirming this (14000 ft – ground level data is missing):
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
with a sharp downturn in December.
Also the WUWT ENSO /ocean data shows weakening in the West Pacific surface warmth, and even a cool patch in the Indian ocean.
On the UNISYS SST map the “true blues” seem to be winning out over the “dirty yellows” (c.f. The Wacky Racers).
long pig says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:40 am
… Current AMSU temperatures seem to be confirming this (14000 ft – ground level data is missing): http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
with a sharp downturn in December.
Wait and see
V.
Ed Scott says:
December 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“Russian scientists have discovered hundreds of plumes of methane gas, some 1,000 meters in diameter, bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. Scientists are concerned that as the Arctic Shelf recedes, the unprecedented levels of gas released could greatly accelerate global climate change.”
That’s what happens when the rightfully concerned Expert ipcc Climate Scientists try to deeply sequester the “clouds” produced from the septical products originating from within their own Brick Sh** House, instead of immediately exposing them to the light of real, sceptical science. If they’d been practicing real science, they would have been able to predict the occasional emergence of these methane plumes. But as per usual, they still don’t know how to manage the massive volume of their own waste products, much less by factoring in the movements of Continental Shelfs.