UAH global Temperature for December – no change

I should add that I smoothed the input data for the forumla above.

Roy Spencer likes to say that curve is for “entertainment purposes only” but it’s pretty obviously meaningful and clearly starting to decline – which is in keeping with Scafetta’s 60 year cycle etc http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/
It is also in keeping with Trenberth’s trend of sea surface temperatures which SkS so kindly published http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg
Note also this plot which is the inverted sum of scalar angular momentum of the Sun and 9 planets. It shows a 934 year cycle and the superimposed 60 year cycle. http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg There is a connection between angular momentum and the tidal effect of gravity which varies with the cube of the distance, not the square, as it takes into account the acceleration due to relative motion.
The truth of the matter is that the “greenhouse effect” is a physical impossibility. If carbon dioxide does anything it would be causing slight cooling (a) by absorbing some IR coming in from the Sun which just might have had frequencies high enough to warm cold areas on Earth (b) helping to radiate away thermal energy gained by diffusion from oxygen and nitrogen molecules which don’t radiate much themselves.
Then it seems we have climate cycles governed by planetary orbits, primarily those of Jupiter and Saturn which have a resonance cycle of 59.6 years. Jupiter’s eccentricity may govern the long term 900 to 1000 year cycle.

sky says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm
It’s curious that, despite a double-dip La Nina and upwardly revised monthly ‘norms,” the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sky, I just hope it does not get lower.I’m already freezing where I am now and I have already exhausted my central heating budget for this winter, winter having started 3 weeks before normal.
I miss global warming.

tim in vermont says:
January 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“Arrived at after ten mins with the coolest app I have seen in a long time.
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa”
Tim, Thanks, that is a cool app!
So we have a +0.13 C anomaly since satellite records in 1979. Reminds me of Dr Lindzen on the GATA and I loosely paraphrase: “Sometimes it goes up a little, sometimes down a little and sometimes does just about nothing at all.”
Crisis?
Pfft!

So what’d all of 2011 end up at compared to previous years?
It’ll be interesting to see where the next extended non-La Nina/non-El Nino period goes to. I have a suspicion it will be right back around the 2002-2008 relatively flat period.
But make no mistake –it’s far more of a problem for the AGWers that the “inexorable increase” of their models has flat-lined for a decade or more than it is for the skeptics and luke-warmers that we’ve not had a prolonged down turn. The AGWers are left with “return with a VENGEANCE!” ghost stories like yet another Friday the 13th movie sequel.
What are they going to argue? The natural variability that they insist doesn’t exist? Fine, admit it exists, and then tell us how you intend to remove it from the back period as well.

One one of the MSM channelsthis morning, they passed off 2011 as the “equal tenth warmest”
globull temperature.

I kind of wish that curve weren’t there. It really has little meaning, and even less so for the future.

Kramer – There is data for the Arctic – see http://climate-change-theory.com/arctic1880.jpg showing it was warmer in the 1930’s

“The truth of the matter is that the “greenhouse effect” is a physical impossibility”
You are 150 years out of date. That you are not openly laughed at here for saying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here.

kramer says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm
To Dr. Roy Spencer (or anybody else who can answer these 2 questions).
1) Does the satellite data include both the North Pole and South Pole temperature readings?
2) If the answer to 1 is yes, does James Hansen uses this information when he creates his global warming maps that show massive warming in the Arctic?
(I’m curious as to where he gets his temperature data from since there aren’t a whole lot of temp sensors in the Arctic).
================================================
Kramer, I’m not an authority, but my understanding is no to number 1, but gets close. However, relating to the previous post, I recall Dr. Christy cautioning on the use of sat data above a certain northern latitude. (80°?) As to Hansen, he uses either a red or pink crayon, and extrapolates and interpolates numbers…… mostly from the GHCN, using land based temp reading.
I’ll look for the Christy statement, as I recall, it was here that he made that statement.

My memory may be going, but its still better than ok. Here’s Dr. Christy’s words……

As the spacecraft rolls over the pole it does so at an inclined orbit so that the highest nadir latitude is about 82 deg with the scanner looking out a bit closer to the pole. Since we apply the scan line data mostly to the nadir area directly below the satellite, the actual data only go to about 83 deg. In the gridded data I interpolate over the pole, but I wouldn’t trust the data too much beyond 85 deg.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

Alan Statham says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“That you are not openly laughed at here for saying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here.”
============================================================
No, it simply shows that most here aren’t as boorish as others are willing to display. And, if anything, its says volumes to your scientific knowledge. You can make snide comments but you can’t respond to the two very simple statements he/she made? And then you snark about the standards here? phhttt.

James Re “Fact is, no one really uses R² for predictive purposes.”
My only comment is that Nicola Scafetta appears to use some cyclic trend (presumably a sinusoidal fit) for predictive purposes – apparently with good accuracy …he says:
“An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations.”
This, I believe, will become “standard” in the future for long-term climate predictions.

tim in vermont says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.”
————————–
There is a data point in early 1983 that is hotter than the last 2 months, some 28 years hence.
Cherry picking is fun, but I also stated a fact.

Richard M says:
January 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm
We may be in a La Niña based on ocean temperatures but I’m not sure this is a normal one. The SOI has been fairly quiet compared to what it could be. As such I don’t think there’s a huge pile of warm waters in the PWP. I have no idea what this might mean. Has anyone seen any discussion of this anomaly?
———
As has been pointed out numerous times, the measurement of SST’s during ENSO cycles in general tells out only how much net energy is leaving or remaining in the surface layer of the oceans, and in general, more net energy is stored in the ocean during a La Nina. If we are measuring anomalous heat at the surface of the ocean that is a sure sign that the atmosphere is about to get warmer as that heat being measured is being transferred from ocean to atmosphere. Though of course, skeptics are quick to find all sorts of reasons why Ocean Heat Content estimates must be inaccurate, in fact they are the best metric for really seeing what the true energy being stored in the upper layers of the ocean is doing. It goes up during most La Nina’s, and this latest one is no exception. In general the oceans have given up less energy than they’ve taken up over the past 30 years or so– meaning that El Ninos have not released as much energy as has been stored during La Nina’s.
Also one comment about Dr. Spencer’s “entertaining” 3rd Order Polynomial Fit. It truly does of course mean nothing at all, and I suspect, in the next few years, if Dr. Spencer retains it, it will be even more than obvious that it means nothing.The current peak in the 3rd order polynomical fit is gettting a bit “long in the tooth” (i.e flattening), and the next move in the 3rd order polynomical, as the current La Nina fades and some of that energy is released back to the atmosphere, could be up.

kramer says: I still would like to know where Hansen gets his temperature data he uses to plot his Arctic temperatures…
It is made up from a few (a VERY few) land stations up to 1200 km away from that cell. It is entirely a work of mathematical fiction based on something they call “The Reference Station Method”, that has been “pal reviewed” in a very narrow set of conditions, then applied in far broader context, and recursively, with ever less ‘related’ stations.
I’ve read (and run) the code.

Oh, and please everyone.. ignore the 3rd order polynomial, its just a pretty curve, and totally meaningless. (sort of like straight lines are meaningless wrt climate.).

So where does that put 2011 historically? I haven’t seen any news articles about it being the Xth warmest year so it can’t have been too bad. I can tell from the chart above that every month of 2011 was cooler than its respective month in 2010. But I’m still half expecting to come across an article talking about how this was still a warmer than average year and how all of the Y warmest years have occurred in the last Y years.

For all the naysaying, claims of meaninglessness or entertainingness, etc., made for it above … that 3rd order polynomial fit gets to look a better fit with every passing month. Even if it should “really” be a 60-year sine wave.

R. Gates says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm
In general the oceans have given up less energy than they’ve taken up over the past 30 years or so–
Sufficient data do not exist do draw that conclusion. We don’t have one decade of ocean heat content data, let alone three.
The current peak in the 3rd order polynomical fit is gettting a bit “long in the tooth” (i.e flattening), and the next move in the 3rd order polynomical, as the current La Nina fades and some of that energy is released back to the atmosphere, could be up.
Uh, when a third order polynomial peak “flattens”, it is approaching an inflection point, and the trend is about to head the other way. You’re better off with the “that third order polynomial fit doesn’t mean anything” tune from your “whistling in the dark” repertoire.

sky says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm
It’s curious that, despite a double-dip La Nina and upwardly revised monthly ‘norms,” the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.
It is curious that, despite claims of “accelerating warming” and “tipping points of no return from certain doom”, the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to rise significantly any at all above where it was nearly fifteen years ago.

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.
Whoa, you know Excel? I know a certain climate scientist that needs a few lessons!

Uh, when a third order polynomial peak “flattens”, it is approaching an inflection point, and the trend is about to head the other way.
____
Nope…it only might be headed “the other way”. It is a fit to the data, not a prediction that the trend is about to do anything. It could just as well deflect higher as lower. It has no predictive value, but is a fit to the data after the fact. As Dr. Spencer points out…”entertainment” only…so apparently he is given to entertaining us. Seems to be a common theme among scientists these days….

The 3 month lag with respect to the ENSO means that UAH Temperatures in December (+0.127C) are responding to the mild -0.74C Nino 3.4 index of September.
The last time the Nino 3.4 was in this range was June 2010 when it was -0.65C. The 3 month lag means the comparable UAH Temperature number is September 2010 when it was +0.477C.
The Nino 3.4 index will reach its low point around late-January at about -1.25C so we will have further cooling over the next four months at least.
Other issues developing is that the AMO has gone negative now and the Atlantic Nino (the Atlantic’s version of the ENSO) has gone strongly negative and this usually leads to further declines in the AMO. So the paused downspike will resume in short order (but then I said that last month as well).

R. Gates. Professors Knox and Douglass would disagree with you about rising OHC. See http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
I provided a link for the data I quoted, though I acknowledge it was Pacific tropical only.
I’ll be away now till Tuesday, so unable to respond promptly.

Just a thought from a dedicated skeptic. For a decade now the CAGW clique have been frustrated by the fact that the actual temp data doesn’t fit the projections of their ‘climate models’ in which the place their religious belief. They are certain they ‘understand’the physics of CO2 and thus they are confident their models will predict future temps. Some skeptics are also certain they understand smaller climate phenomenon, the ENSO, AO, SSTs, La Nina cycles, etc and based on that knowledge they are certain of being able to make seasonal predictions. I tend to believe in much of this– Joe Bastardi is paid fees by comodities traders for weather pattern predictions for futures trading. There was a consensus in this group that the Upper Midwest USA and central canada would see a brutally cold December and the mid atlantic to maritme Canada would see average temps and very stormy conditions. Hasn’t happened; the Greenland block never developed and NA has had a placid, dry and mild december/early January. Is the “climate” a chaotic system that can’t be predicted with anyone’s model?

Volker, read my book: Das Ende der globalen Ewaermung, Berechnung des Klimawandels …all transparently for everyone calculated…all your questions answered….about literature and climate system changes…. only 12,90 E , bei Amazon.de … JS

“”””” kwik says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:45 am
Tim Folkerts says:
January 4, 2012 at 7:51 am
“RE: 3rd Order Polynomials.
Over-fitting noisy data like this with a high order polynomial is indeed nothing but entertainment value”. “””””
Well faced with real data as “noisy” as this, nobody would call a third order polynomial a “high order polynomial”. Maybe a 12th order polynomial would be “high order”.
By the way; that ISN’T noise; it is REAL data., the third order polynomial IS noise.

“”””” n Statham says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Itsaying such a thing only shows what low standards of “science” are maintained here. “””””
Well just in case you think that YOUR favorite text book from which you got all YOUR wisdom, is Biblical truth and beyond reproach; be forewarned; it ain’t necessarily so.
I have in my hand a Text book on thermodynamics.
” An Introduction to Thermal Physics.” by C.J. Adkins
This is not just any text book and adkins is not just any author.
Published by Cambridge University Press, as in the UK Cambridge, and the author is a lecturer in Physics, and a fellow ofJesus College, Cambridge; well he was in 1976.
This copy is from the Hewlett Packard Research Labs Library (and headed back there).
It is actually a fairly reasonable book and as it says, an Introduction. but turn to page 97 where it so happens the section on the Stefan-Boltzmann law starts.
the immediately preceding section is actually about GREENHOUSES and figure 6.14 shows a cross section picture of a greenhouse.
Short wavelength sunligh charges right through the glass roof on the right of the drawing, and impinges on the plants on the tables inside the greenhouse.
Long wavelength IR emitted from the plants, and other things inside heads towards the glass roof on the left, where it is largely stopped, and mostly reflected, with a small transmitted component..
As they say, the long wavelength is instercepted by the glass.
Now everybody above 4-H club knows that green houses simply DO NOT work that way.
well actually they do. The sunlight does enter, largely unhindered except for its long IR tail, and even that gets through; and the internally emitted LWIR does get intercepted by the roof glass, just as Lecturer author Adkins shows; EXCEPT, it doesn’t reflect, it gets absorbed, and heats the glass, just as the incoming solar IR does, and then the glass inturn radiates LWIR both inside and outside, so about half of the internal IR probably leaks out maybe more.
As we all know, except for C.J. Adkins, it is the inability of the heated internal air to escape through the roof by convection, that causes the Temperature to rise as far inside the enclosure.
Well you could make the green house out of opaque material like fiberglass or steel, and it would still get hot inside, even though sunlight could no longer penetrate, to be down converted to LWIR.
So don’t take for granted, that your favorite text book is above reproach; it surely was well known by 1976 that green houses don’t actually work via the “greenhouse effect” although we know that atmospheric warming surely does to some extent. As to what else is warmed; well that is another matter.