UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for December, 2011 remained about the same November, +0.13 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 the monthly stats for 2010 and 2011:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 +0.542 +0.675 +0.410 +0.635
2010 2 +0.510 +0.553 +0.466 +0.759
2010 3 +0.554 +0.665 +0.443 +0.721
2010 4 +0.400 +0.606 +0.193 +0.633
2010 5 +0.454 +0.642 +0.265 +0.706
2010 6 +0.385 +0.482 +0.287 +0.485
2010 7 +0.419 +0.558 +0.280 +0.370
2010 8 +0.441 +0.579 +0.304 +0.321
2010 9 +0.477 +0.410 +0.545 +0.237
2010 10 +0.306 +0.257 +0.356 +0.106
2010 11 +0.273 +0.372 +0.173 -0.117
2010 12 +0.181 +0.217 +0.145 -0.222
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
2011 12 +0.127 +0.197 +0.057 +0.043
I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.
[Reminder: Since AMSR-E failed in early October, there will be no more sea surface temperature updates from that instrument.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you wnt to take a guess at GISS, use this formula where Time is the number of months since 1979
GISS = 0.1656 + 0.6833*RSS + 0.0005592*Time
Arrived at after ten mins with the coolest app I have seen in a long time.
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa
I should add that I smoothed the input data for the forumla above.
I am wondering does anyone else see that entertaining third order polynomial fit trending down?
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.
Is it a …..sine curve? Cyclical? If that curve continues like that ….and cross zero again…..
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.
“the global average anomaly stubbornly refuses to dip significantly below zero.”
If by that you mean it hasn’t done it since early this year, then point granted.
So, if the”actual measured whole-earth-average temperature data” for a 30 year period varies by +/- 0.20 degrees PER MONTH from any sort of “stable” or “average value” (1 year period, 13 month period, 2 year period, whatever period, …)
then, it is not demonstrably correct that any (and every) temperature record derived from any and all proxies of any and all types or from any and all past reconstructions of climate include this +/- 0.20 measured month-to-month variation?
That is, regardless of the error bars of the proxy used (errors in dating the exact year and month of the proxy) and errors in reconstructing the pseudo-temperature record derived from that proxy, every past climate reconstruction must start with a 0.2 error bar for each data point.
And thus, if any past temperature record is used to compare that record against today’s temperature, the change must be greater than 2 std deviations from the “norm” before ay conclusion (about the temperature itself, the effect of the temperature on feather length, beak size, beach height, mating tends of the species, number of the specie, distribution of the specie, CO2 concentration of the sample, hurricane intensity, snow fall record, glacier length, or whatever).
True? From this very definitive plot of the earth’s so-called average temperature, can you pick the “exact average temperature” for example of 1984? Of 1992? Of 1998? Or of 2005 – without including the month-to-month changes in temperatures in that year?
Note that the net increase in Dr Spencer’s curved trend line is 0.28 degrees C in the 33 years of accurate satellite measurements, 1979 to 2011 inclusive. This is 0.85 degrees C per century which is in keeping with the long-term growth rate since the Little Ice Age, thus showing absolutely no increase in the rate which could be attributed to industrialisation.
Using Scafetta’s cycles I expect to see slight cooling until 2028 (maybe 0.1 to 0.2 degrees) then warming of about 0.4 to 0.5 degrees from 2028 to 2058. That 2058 60-year maximum may also be the long-term maximum in the 900 to 1000 year cycle, meaning that cooling would then set in for the next 450 years.
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
If you wnt to take a guess at GISS, use this formula where Time is the number of months since 1979
GISS = 0.1656 + 0.6833*RSS + 0.0005592*Time
Arrived at after ten mins with the coolest app I have seen in a long time.
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa
================================================
You talked me into it. I’m playing with it now. It is the coolest!
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!
Sky– fair point. But what is your point? The UAH database, one of the few reliable temp databases, and it only goes back 32 years, shows anomolies in TENTHs of a degree centigrade. And the UAH plot is suspiciously begining to look much like a sine wave. Time will tell about that. In the meantime, NO evidence of CATASTROPHIC AGW. That what the skeptics rightly point to. If it’s not in the data, it doesn’t exist.
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.
According to the Very Preliminary Sea Surface Temperatures for December 2011, Global Sea Surface Temperatures dropped almost 0.05 Deg C in December:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/monthly-global.png
The graph is from the recent preliminary update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/very-preliminary-december-2011-sst-anomaly-update/
But based on the rebound of the weekly global data over the past few weeks, the monthly drop in the Global SST will likely settle out at around 0.04 deg C for December, which is still a reasonable drop.
One one of the MSM channelsthis morning, they passed off 2011 as the “equal tenth warmest”
globull temperature.
Thanks Dr. Spencer. I read this with relief; 3 months in a row with no global cooling, which would be deadly. I, for one, do not mind warming!
It seems like additional CO2 has little warming effect, but the Sun seems to be protecting us from the chilling stars 😉
(Thanks Dr. Svensmark)
I kind of wish that curve weren’t there. It really has little meaning, and even less so for the future.
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).
Doh!… I just went back to the home page and saw the next article on the UAH satellite data in the Antarctic… My bad.
I still would like to know where Hansen gets his temperature data he uses to plot his Arctic temperatures…
Apologies to some above,
Roy is correct, you definitely should not read anything into the 3rd order polynomial fit – apparent lessening of warming in recent years – this is purely an artifact of the shape of 3rd order polynomials.
1st order is a straight line.
2nd order is a parabola.
3rd order, at the extremes, starts/ends highly negative/postive and finishes highly positive/negative (the opposite) with a mirrored ‘flip’ around the centre.
You can’t get a sine wave from a third order polynomial and you should not ‘anticipate’ a cyclical temperature signal from the ‘fit’ shown.
Roy reproduces the 3rd order ‘fit’ every month, albeit with the caveat. I have to say I’m not happy with it being there – it is ‘suggestive’ of a characteristic that is certainly bogus- the other side pull these sort of tricks, we don’t need to.
Stick with linear trends.
Kramer – There is data for the Arctic – see http://climate-change-theory.com/arctic1880.jpg showing it was warmer in the 1930’s
Another thrilling installment! I’m already on tenterhooks waiting for next month. Will it go up a little bit? Will it go down a little bit? Can I wait a whole 31 days to find out?
And that line… oh, the entertainment value.
“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.
GSW It is just as fallacious to assume a linear trend rather than any kind of curve when it comes to climate. Scafetta* has put forward a cogent argument that overlapping climate cycles of various periodicity (some dominating such as 60 year and 900 to 1000 year) do in fact correlate well with climate and can be used to predict such because they appear to relate to planetary orbits. Planetary orbits are likely to impose approximate overlapping sinusoidal trends. My point is that you should take into account other known information when fitting trends.
Hence, given this background information, I suggest that it is indeed more appropriate to fit perhaps a sine curve which would look similar to Spencer’s curve. In any event, even a linear trend shows only about 0.1 degree per decade for those 33 years I think you would agree.
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/