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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 (?)
This temperature decline is *completely consistent* with CAGW theory! 🙂
Did anyone else notice that the ENSO meter moved to neutral a couple days ago?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?)
“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"
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!!!
@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….
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…”
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. . . . . .
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.
Certain people really seem to be annoyed by that polynomial…
So leave it in!
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!
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!