UAH global Temperature for December – no change

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.