UAH global temperature anomaly – still below the zero line

UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2012: -0.12 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly cooled a little more in February, 2012, again not unexpected for the current La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean (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:

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

2011 12 +0.126 +0.197 +0.055 +0.041

2012 01 -0.090 -0.057 -0.123 -0.138

2012 02 -0.116 -0.014 -0.217 -0.281

Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset, which will have a better adjustment for drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and an improved calibration procedure for the older MSU instruments (pre-1998).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Richard M

If not for the big jump early in the month the number would have been much lower. Electroscavenging? It fits the data as the upward movement started immediately after a major CME.
All the evidence is pointing towards GHGs working as tiny little thermostats and the real difference in temperatures is driven by changes in albedo. Since several factors appear to affect albedo it makes it difficult to sort them all out. GCRs, CMEs, variations in magnetism, etc., etc.
Of course, the models do little to help us out.

Honest ABE

They are so found of saying the 2000’s are the “warmest decade EVA” but I suspect they won’t be fond of this new decade when all is said and done.

Joachim Seifert

Dr. Roy: For updating and easier understanding: Could we write El Nino 2010 above
the 2010 temp spike? This would help explain to NEW viewers….. Thanks…..

I have a computer model that says your experimental data is wrong.

Dinostratus

“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.”
Then take it off. It implies a pattern.

Jenny

I’m sure the warming alarmist will once again declare that lower temperatures are a sure sign of man-made global warming. Why let the facts cloud a good old fashioned scare-mongering good time! Heck, the good intentions of those who want to spend trillions of dollars (from others of course) to make us live like stone age serfs should be all that is required for the masses to bow to their great intellect.

Ed, 'Mr.' Jones

TallDave says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:57 am
I have a computer model that says your experimental data is wrong.
“Brevity is the soul of wit”
Oscar Wilde (?)

Thomas

This temperature decline is *completely consistent* with CAGW theory! 🙂

Frizzy

Did anyone else notice that the ENSO meter moved to neutral a couple days ago?

David Jay

Dino:
When you create a satellite derived global and regional temperature reconstruction, feel free to take off (or leave on) whatever items you choose.
In the meantime, Dr. Spencer can put whatever graphic he chooses on his graph. And Anthony can give guest posts to whomever he wants.

Wade

Frizzy says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:41 am
Did anyone else notice that the ENSO meter moved to neutral a couple days ago?

I did. And then I went on the ENSO page and noticed two things. First, the first graph, the NINO 3.4 index, had a HUGE spike up. Then I went down to the NOAA SST anomaly graphic and noticed a big spot of yellow off the coast of South America that wasn’t there last month. It appears to me that the oceans have really warmed over the past month, so I suspect the UAH temperature anomaly with creep up next month.

Allan MacRae

Dinostratus says: March 2, 2012 at 9:14 am
“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.”
Then take it off. It implies a pattern.
_____________________
It implies a third degree polynomial fit of ACTUAL DATA.
I say leave it in.
If you want to argue this point Dino, you should argue with those who choose to extrapolate a linear relationship into the future, when it is most likely the ~30-year warming half of a ~60 year warming and cooling cycle.
This cycle is apparent in some much data, from Western Canada river flows to salmon runs to global surface temperatures. I expect it is apparent all over the world. It may be a global manifestation of the PDO.
I predicted imminent global cooling in an article published in 2003.
My guess is the polynomial, while having no predictive value, is pointing in the right direction.
To date, the IPCC’s climate models have over-predicted global warming and have been scaled downward again and again. To my knowledge, none of the IPCC’s published model results have predicted global cooling.
Anyone else is welcome to do their own research and come up with their own predictions.
You are all likely to do better than the IPCC.
Ladies and gentlemen, faites vos jeux!

Werner Brozek

To put the combined January and February numbers into perspective, 2012 for these two months is the 26th warmest out of the 33 years of UAH data. Of course this will change before the year is out, but you are not going to set a new record this way.

John from CA

Dr. Spencer proves the thesis, IPCC projections under estimated natural cycles and thus over estimate AGW. Its fairly obvious from AR4 but to what conclusion?

Mildly interesting that the averages for January and February 2012 are both lower than their respective averages last year. (Does anyone have 2010 handy? How many years back, if any, does that go?)

RACookPE1978

“The circular fit of observational data (courtesy of Ptolemy’s equants) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Copernicus, 1539, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium
“The circular fit of observational data for Copernian helio-centric circles for all other planets except the earth and moon (courtesy of sextants, quadrants, and armillary spheres) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Tycho Brahe, 1588, “De Mundi Aetherei Recentioribus Phaenomenis”
“The octahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron, tetrahedron, and cubic fit of observational data for all planets (courtesy of observational data confirming the size of each planet’s orb to the length of its orbital period for a ratio of increase in orbital period at twice the difference in orb radius) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Johann Kepler, 1595, “Mysterium Cosmographicum”
“The elliptical fit of Tycho’s observational data for Mars (courtesy of my assumption that planets move in ellipses, with the sun at one focus while sweeping out equal areas in equal times) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Johann Kepler, 1609, “Astronomia nova”
“The Jovian-circular fit of Galileo’s observational data for its moons (courtesy of his telescope) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Johann Kepler, 1610, “Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo” discussing Galileo’s recent Sidereus Nuncius
“The heliocentric fit of observational data for all planets and their moons (courtesy of new observational data from my telescope) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Galileo Galilei, 1632, “Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo”
“The elliptical fit of observational data for orbits of the Jovian moons (courtesy of Kepler’s Third Law) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth.” Godefroy Wendelin, 1643, “Loxias seu de obliquitate solis” *8<)
"The inverse squared fit of observational data for all masses under the theoretical influence of the Law of Gravity (courtesy of observational data from an apple) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever for future planetary positions with respect to the earth." Issac Newton, 1686, "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica"

John from CA

RACookPE1978 says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:59 am
===========
Newton and Descartes — rescued Science from the “Church of Rome” and ushered generations into freedom of thought?
I don’t see it in any other way.
Do You and if so please explain!!!

Dodgy Geezer

@TallDave says:
“Brevity is the soul of wit” – Oscar Wilde (?)
Obviously you missed class when they were doing Hamlet….
@Dinostratus
…Then take it off. It implies a pattern…”
It seems obvious to me that the Earth’s climate is constrained between quite narrow bands by various negative feedbacks, otherwise it would have swung to a limit before now. If this is true, then I would expect to see a repetitive pattern in the temperature – oscillation is so common in these kind of situations. So leave it in – we are looking for a pattern, not trying to ignore one….

Frank K.

So the Earth’s temperature has now returned to where it was back in 1980 when A Flock of Seagulls had the hit song “And I Ran”. How can this be?? There is clearly more CO2 in the air! How CAN this be?
The Talking Heads said it best:
“Same as it ever was…”

Emeritus eng

There is a sting in the tail of Excel trend lines. It seems that the curve drawn is ok on the graph but if you display the equation to the trend line, an option provided by Excel, the equation is only accurate when the chart selected to display the data is an X Y plot.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211967
I realise no one has got that far yet on this thread but. . . . . .

geo

ENSO is headed straight up at the moment, and recently crossed into “neutral” territory. There is some months of lag in these things, typically, before they start impacting the global anomaly significantly.
The ensemble average of predictions suggests we might be flirting with a moderate El Nino by this fall, but that’s subject to change as well.

And, as I usually write about this time each month, for those interested, I’ve posted the preliminary February 2012 sea surface temperature anomaly data here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/preliminary-february-2012-sst-anomaly-update/
The full update will be available on Monday March 5th.

DirkH

Certain people really seem to be annoyed by that polynomial…
So leave it in!

Seth

Dinostratus says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:14 am
“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.”
Then take it off. It implies a pattern
And
Allan MacRae says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:00 am
“It implies a third degree polynomial fit of ACTUAL DATA.
I say leave it in.”
I say the good doctor puts it in there as bait for people like Dino. Allan – just relax and enjoy the show when they bite!

RACookPE1978

John from CA says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:12 am (commenting on)
RACookPE1978 says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:59 am
===========
Newton and Descartes — rescued Science from the “Church of Rome” and ushered generations into freedom of thought?
I don’t see it in any other way.
Do You and if so please explain!!!

The positions of either with respect to the discussion at hand is irrelevant.
You missed the entire point of my comment: it is a light-hearted comment about an earth-shattering – but totally wrong! presentation of incomplete and somewhat inaccurate observational data using the wrong theory … by (abusing) the good doctor’s own Excel apology.
But each observation was defiantly earth-shattering … despite being definitely wrong at the same time.
Further, each observation had no theoretical justification by any known physics or mathematics theory at the time it was made … but every observation was physically correct to visible facts at the time it was made.
Newton’s and Descartes supposed “heroic fight” against the church’s view can be mostly derived from today’s back-asswards teaching about Galileo and his trials. At the time of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler the “new” equations and predictions of planetary motion were no better than the original Ptolemy theory of equants and geo-centrism. In fact, the geo-centric theory of orbits and spheres WAS ACCURATE. It had been accurate for over a thousand years with almost no contradictory evidence.
Let me reverse the aim of your comment: Reinhold’s, Rheticus’, Newton’s, Copernicus’, Brahe’s and Kepler’s known and deliberate use of astrological predictions for their monied sponsors; their sponsor-beneficat dedications and praises in the dedications and signature pages of their books can be very explicitly compared to today’s CAGW “scientists” paying off their governmental agencies for grant money and influence over the world’s political future.
Ptolemy’s Geo-centric theory with equants was more accurate than Columbus’ prediction of a sea route to the Indies – because the established authorities KNEW the earth was circular, but that the real sphere was far larger than Columbus’ deliberate but totally wrong assumption about a small radius, and thus a safe journey sailing west!

Ian W

Wade says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:57 am
Frizzy says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:41 am
Did anyone else notice that the ENSO meter moved to neutral a couple days ago?
I did. And then I went on the ENSO page and noticed two things. First, the first graph, the NINO 3.4 index, had a HUGE spike up. Then I went down to the NOAA SST anomaly graphic and noticed a big spot of yellow off the coast of South America that wasn’t there last month. It appears to me that the oceans have really warmed over the past month, so I suspect the UAH temperature anomaly with creep up next month.

But the Indonesian warm pool that normally recharges the El Nino is absent. A very strange pattern of temperatures at the moment. With these extensive cold temperature anomalies outside the constraints of the ENSO box perhaps the metering may not be so predictive. Have to wait for Bob Tisdale to comment.

RACookPE1978

And, by the way, Columbus’ critics preceded any thought or conception of helio-centric theory’s.
His voyage (and fund-raising) in 1492 HAD to use accurate and repeatable Ptolemaic geo-centric star-charts to plot his path to and from the West Indian islands. Magellan’s fleet circled the globe in 1522-1523 using Ptolemy’s geo-centric star charts before Copernicus published his helio-circular – but wrong – theory in 1543.
Brahe and Copernicus and Ptolemy correctly predict the position of the planets with respect to the earth with considerable accuracy. Magellan and hundred’s of other Europeans used Ptolemy’s geo-centric star charts 80 years before Kepler first published his – totally wrong – first religious-based theories about why the sun held an attraction for its planets.
Hint. Read: Owen Gingrich’s “The Book No One Read” about the publishing, editing and numerous edits and revisions to Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus before you go further.

Dave

It’s worse than we thought!
Someone had to say it.

Dr Burns

What’s happened to January’s Hadcrut ?

kwik

DirkH says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:50 am
“Certain people really seem to be annoyed by that polynomial…
So leave it in!”
Yes, consider it to be the “Anti-Hockeystick”.

Barefoot boy from Brooklyn

Re Dino and the polynomial, which I agree with Seth and others is a bit of a tease: You can be sure that if the right end of the curve pointed up, the AGW crowd would be touting it as “settled science.”

Steve Oregon

TallDave says: March 2, 2012 at 8:57 am
“I have a computer model that says your experimental data is wrong.”
Well I have an experimental computer model that says observations are wrong.

Cassandra King

Why is it that you big oil funded denialists have such a problem understanding the new consensus based science? As CO2 emissions cause the planet to heat up it has the effect of cooling the planet down, simple cause and effect isnt it? Simple physics dictates that heating something makes it cooler. And as the planet gets hotter and hotter which the the computer models have conclusively proved the planet in turn gets cooler as the observed data proves. What could be simpler to understand? And yet the big oil funded denier industry constantly attempts to confuse the issues and refuses to enter a rational dialogue in the simple form of an abject grovelling apology and conversion to the universal consensus. We simply must continue to drastically slash CO2 emissions whatever the cost, its the only way to stop the global warming that leads to the planet cooling leading to utterly disastrous warming/cooling/droughts/floods/too much snow/not enough snow. In short CO2 causes everything to happen or not happen as the case may be. CO2, its not a trace gas, its an evil genius out to deceive and conquer us using big oil funded deniers as its agents.
Come and join the consensus, we are not a cult you know.
REPLY: Stephanie, this is a joke, right? You just forgot to add the /sarc tag right? – Anthony

braddles

The funniest thing about that 3rd-order polynomial fit is that historically, by chance, it does have predictive power.
If you delete the last 10 years of data and draw a 3rd order polynomial through the remainder, and then project that line forward 10 years (Excel will do that), you get an excellent prediction of actual temperature, and a line very similar to the current one.
As such, it has vastly greater predictive power than any climate model of ten years ago. Yes, this is just a statistical fluke, but it also tells you something about the the models. They can’t even get it right by chance.

son of mulder

“braddles says:
March 2, 2012 at 1:20 pm
….As such, it has vastly greater predictive power ….”
NO! A 3rd order polynomial has 1 maximum and 1 minimum. It is now heading down forever hence no predictive power at all just chance over the last 10 years.

More Soylent Green!

I wonder how you have to draw the trend line to make the ridiculous claim it’s still warming? (Getting warmer.)
I know, just draw a line from the start point (1979) to the end point (2010) and just continue to infinity.

RACookPE1978

Ah, but what does an sinusoid curve predict?

Kev-in-UK

Cassandra King says:
March 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
WTF?
I hope to goodness Anthony’s reply is valid or else we really do have some completely deranged ‘faithful’ out there in la-la land!

Jim G

“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.”
Neither do the climate models. Looks like a pretty sinusoidal function to me. Why would it be any less predictive than said models?

Werner Brozek

joshua says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:44 am
Mildly interesting that the averages for January and February 2012 are both lower than their respective averages last year. (Does anyone have 2010 handy? How many years back, if any, does that go?)

See
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
You may also want to see the following which ranks all 33 years on this set from hottest to coldest:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/uah-amsu-2011-was-4th-coldest-in-this.html

Werner Brozek

Dr Burns says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
What’s happened to January’s Hadcrut ?

I was wondering that myself. The January 2012 value for HadCrut3 at about 0.22 certainly does not help THE CAUSE. At 0.22, it would rank 18th hottest. And UAH for February certainly will not help either.
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#HadCRUT3%20TempDiagram
Time and tide wait for no man. But we all wait for Hadcrut.

SJF

Jim G it is not a sine wave, as son of mulder says it can only go down now. Go to fooplot.com and enter y(x) = x – x^3 to get a more complete picture of what a third-order polynomial looks like.
I think Dinostratus’s point is a fair one and I am glad that Spencer always posts the disclaimer clearly.

phlogiston

Dinostratus says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:14 am
“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.”
Then take it off. It implies a pattern.
And a pattern is such a bizzare, forbidden idea? Oh – I forgot – nonequilibrium/nonlinear pattern formation is to current climate research what the periodic table of elements would have been to 13th century alchemists.

phlogiston

Cassandra King says:
March 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Come and join the consensus, we are not a cult you know.
Sarcasm has to be used sparingly on sites like these, go too deep into cover and folks lose the plot and get nervous.
Kev-in-UK says:
March 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Cassandra King says:
March 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
WTF?
I hope to goodness Anthony’s reply is valid or else we really do have some completely deranged ‘faithful’ out there in la-la land!
Folks here should know Cassandra King better than that!

phlogiston

Bob Tisdale says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:45 am
And, as I usually write about this time each month, for those interested, I’ve posted the preliminary February 2012 sea surface temperature anomaly data here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/preliminary-february-2012-sst-anomaly-update/
The full update will be available on Monday March 5th.
Thanks Bob. I guess the usual hue and cry for el Nino will go up. However such is the intensity and persistence of the south west Pacific surface warmth that it is interesting to speculate that, even in the (temporary) absence of Peruvian coast cold upwelling, an east-west equatorial temperature gradient will remain sufficient to cap off the growth of a strong el Nino (by sustaining the trades, preventing them from turning into doldrums) and keep renewed La Nina upwelling not too far away.

James of the West

Dinostratus, it could be that the entertainment value lies in the responses to it such as yours. I agree on a scientific basis but its easy to ignore the poly curve if you try.

James of the West

Dr Burns, I am not sure when HADCRUT are switching to version 4 of their model, the one that apparently makes 2010 hotter than 1998 by changing to CRUTEM4. Maybe it is imminent so updating HADCRUT3 might finish soon or at least be a low priority? Might explain the delays in releasing figures under the old model.
P.D. Jones, D.H. Lister, T.J. Osborn, C. Harpham, M. Salmon, and C.P. Morice, “Hemispheric and large-scale land surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010”, Journal of Geophysical Research

joshua says @ March 2, 2012 at 10:44 am
> Mildly interesting that the averages for January and February 2012 are both
> lower than their respective averages last year. (Does anyone have 2010 handy?
> How many years back, if any, does that go?)
Click on the link http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 to get UAH monthly data all the way back to December 1978.

Philip Bradley

Dinostratus says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:14 am
“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.”
Then take it off. It implies a pattern.

Only Dr Spencer can say for sure why he includes it, but I have always interpreted it as a sly dig at the climate models. Rather clever IMO. His trend is for entertainment purposes, while the climate models’ trend is the basis for changing the entire world economy.

GregF

I’m only lukewarm on AGW, but to say UAH shows cooling is jumping the gun. Here it is with a 2 yr avg. (I find 2 years gets rid of a lot of noise and makes it easier to see what’s going on.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:24
It’s going to take several years of cooling for the graph to look convincing.