UAH Global temperature, up in April

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly increased again in April, 2012, to +0.30°C., with warming in both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, but slightly cool conditions persisting in the tropics (click on the image for the full-size version):

The corresponding April anomaly from RSS, using a common baseline period of 1981-2010, is considerably cooler at +0.21°C.

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 01 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372

2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348

2011 03 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342

2011 04 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229

2011 05 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043

2011 06 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233

2011 07 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204

2011 08 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155

2011 09 +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 -0.112 -0.013 -0.212 -0.277

2012 03 +0.110 +0.129 +0.092 -0.108

2012 04 +0.295 +0.411 +0.179 -0.120

As a reminder, the most common reason for large month-to-month swings in global average temperature is small fluctuations in the rate of convective overturning of the troposphere, discussed here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

And as I link almost every month…
My monthly sea surface temperature anomaly update for April is also showing an uptick:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/april-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

[Please ask him directly on his own blog at http://www.drroyspencer.com – wuwt is not your message delivery bunny ~ mod]

One thing I’ve learnt since watching global temperatures, is that whenever you see a pattern, whenever you think you can predict what is going to happen …. you find you can’t.
So here’s my prediction:
Because we’ve seen warming which must be natural … it must go down.
On the other hand, there’s an underlying amount of warming that should happen due to increasing CO2 … so it will warm.
But statistically its random, so there’s as much chance of it going up as down … so it will be flat
… but since the law of global warming prediction is that as soon as one thinks one knows what its all about, one is proven wrong …. my prediction that it is unpredictable will be proven wrong and it will (appear) predictable.
And they wonder why the ancients used to think the (weather) gods played with them!

DWR54

Edim,
With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2012.png
Where are the are the error bars?
What is the size of the statistical error on each data point?
How is it determined given that one is averaging over different spatial positions?
A great deal of data processing goes into producing this plot, in terms of taking various systematic effects into account, so what is the size of the total systematic error on each data point?
In other words, the total uncertainty in the systematic corrections to the data.
Or do the authors claim to know the global temperature to within +/- 0.01C as the plot appears to imply?
While I’m at it, the competing NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature plot:
http://s18.postimage.org/m38q251lz/global_temperature_NASA_GISS.png
How can any claim to know to within +/- 0.1C what the global temperature was back in 1880?
The hypothesis of global warming appears to depend entirely on this claim.

rossbrisbane

Will it go higher in May?
Where has the global cooling gone?
Can it be the sun?
Perhaps its those cosmic rays?
Maybe it is CO2 as background warming after all.

Correction re NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature plot:
http://s18.postimage.org/m38q251lz/global_temperature_NASA_GISS.png
Those grey bars are not error bars but “5 year means”.
So again, where are the error bars?
How can any claim to know to within +/- 0.1C what the global temperature was back in 1880?
The hypothesis of global warming appears to depend entirely on this claim.
Climate science – the only field of science wherein error analysis is apparently optional.

Kelvin Vaughan

I dont believe it, The average max was 5.8°C COLDER this April here than it was last April.

So the basic point is that the global temp anomaly, a cranky idea in itself, is basically zero.

Stephen Richards

Spencer and Christy reply to the critism in the Po paper recently announced in the press.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Stephen Richards

DWR54 says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:40 am
Edim,
With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?
This El Niño has been struggling to form for some months. In a PDO neg situation it could just fade very suddenly and drop back to a La Niña. On verra.

Stephen Wilde

I missed that earlier post which Roy links to concerning the effects of changes in the rate of convective overturning.
Those changes are the Earth’s thermostat in operation and over shorter timescales constitute the normal system reaction to variability in the rate of energy release by the oceans.
Over the longer term there are similar air circulation changes in response to ANY forcings which affect the energy content of the atmosphere. That includes any effects from more CO2.
So, as others above have pointed out, more GHGs will allow the air to hold more energy but due to the dominance of water on the surface of our planet any extra energy in the air gets immediately converted to latent heat of evaporation and is transported upwards for earlier radiation to space than would otherwise have occurred.
In effect an increase in the size or speed of the water cycle raises the effective radiating height without the system energy content needing to increase at all. Thus no change in surface temperature. The S-B equation should not be used to back calculate the surface temperature from a point within an atmosphere.
That is what stabilises the Earth’s equilibrium temperature whatever disruptive forces are thrown at it.
The cost of that stability is changes in the air circulation pattern and cyclical shifts in the permanent climate zones.
So, in theory, more CO2 would have an effect on the air circulation but given the huge scale of similar effects from short term oceanic and long term solar variability the effect of CO2 can be safely ignored.
Willis Eschenbach’s thermostat hypothesis was almost right but he failed to extend it to the entire globe and link it to latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Bob Tisdale is right about ENSO as an energy redistribution process but fails to extend it to the entire globe and across centuries thereby linking ENSO to long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Svensmark is right about the potential for GCRs to provide more condensation nuclei but fails to show how that could influence latitudinal air circulation shifts.
Roy’s variable month to month data is proof of the system operating effectively.

roger

Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
Perhaps you can hear the sound of celestial harps and Terpsichore instructing myriads of Cherubim and Seraphim in joyful dance, performed to the tune of “give me that old time religion”, on a severely restricted, rounded, metallic floor.
Who needs error bars when you have conviction?

DWR54 says: “With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?”
Except the warm water that fuels an El Nino comes from the western tropical Pacific, not the east. The pocket of warm water in the east could upset the trade winds, though, which would then lead to an El Nino.

Stephen Wilde says: “Bob Tisdale is right about ENSO as an energy redistribution process but fails to extend it to the entire globe and across centuries thereby linking ENSO to long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.”
Your claim that my research fails at something does not sit well with me, Stephen. That wasn’t something I wanted to read while having my first cup of coffee this morning.
First, for more than three years, I have been illustrating the effects of ENSO on global surface temperatures. You’ve commented on those threads, so you know those posts exist. Second, as you’re aware, I use satellite-based sea surface temperatures for that. And as you are also aware, sea surface temperature data before the satellite era is riddled with problems because the source data is so sparse. So there is no means for anyone to show the impacts of ENSO on global surface temperature as I do during the century before the satellite era, let alone centuries (plural) that interests you since there is NO observations-based data prior to the mid 19th century. Third, I present the effects of ENSO on surface temperatures because that is the metric most people understand and rely on. It is only you, Stephen, who has interest in “long term latitudinal air circulation shifts.” I certainly do not.
We’ve been through this before, Stephen, and each time I have suggested to you that YOU do your own research. I’m not going to do it for you. Your complaint that my research has failed to illustrate what you would like me to present confirms for all that you have not bothered to fully research the topics that interest you or it illustrates to them that you aren’t capable of doing so.
Now I’ll finish that cup of coffee and start the day over.

Gail Combs

Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2012.png
Where are the are the error bars?
What is the size of the statistical error on each data point?
How is it determined given that one is averaging over different spatial positions?
____________________________
Go ask Dr. Spencer or just start reading at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Gail Combs

Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:11 am
I dont believe it, The average max was 5.8°C COLDER this April here than it was last April.
_______________________________
Kelvin, compare the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png"NINO2.4 SST index that Edim kindly pointed out to Spencer’s graph above. It more or less follows SST. (Not a surprise to most here on WUWT)

Typhoon says:
What is the size of the statistical error on each data point?
How is it determined given that one is averaging over different spatial positions?
…How can any claim to know to within +/- 0.1C what the global temperature was back in 1880?[as per GISS]

blackswhitewash.com says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:22 am
So the basic point is that the global temp anomaly, a cranky idea in itself, is basically zero.

Dunno about the error on each data point, but my favourite image of what the data points might look like on these sorts of graphs is this one by Grotch after Lindzen:
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/slgrotchafterlindzen/
(I can’t verify becasue I cant find an original published source)

Kelvin Vaughan

Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:01 am
Kelvin, compare the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png"NINO2.4
Thanks for the link Gail. I tried but it said :
The page you requested was not found on this server

Stephen Wilde

“Your claim that my research fails at something does not sit well with me, Stephen. ”
Sorry Bob. I just meant that in the sense that your research doesn’t extend to the areas I mentioned. I did not mean to imply that you had been unsuccessful at anything.
You have made it clear to me that you choose not to extend your research because of the inadequacy of the available data which is a perfectly respectable choice on your part but not one that I feel obliged to follow.
The data coming in is fitting very well with my propositions so far.
I only mentioned it in order to clearly distinguish my work from yours. Likewise my references to Svensmark and Eschenbach.
No personal or professional criticism of any of you was intended.

Ian W

Of more interest is an exercise where a standard sheet of graph paper is used where each square represents a degree C. WIth temperatures over the Earth varying from say – 50degC to +50degC the 0deg C line is along the center of the page. Now using a fine pencil plot the average temperature adjusted by the anomalies in the average as in the graph above. Now add error lines above and below the temperature line.
Now show the plot to an average person and try to get them excited about the variation in ‘global temperatures’.

Kelvin Vaughan

Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:01 am
Got it now from Edim’s post Gail Thanks.

Gail Combs

blackswhitewash.com says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:22 am
So the basic point is that the global temp anomaly, a cranky idea in itself, is basically zero.
___________________________
Yes The whole flap is about counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet we are going to completely wreck our economies and revamp our entire world political system ( Agenda 21 ) to “protect Mother Earth from those nasty humans”
The “Calculated” change in “Global” temperature is less than 1C and based on badly sited thermometers in the US (Anthony’s Surface Stations Project ) and shoddy, inaccurate Australian temperature records (joannenova.com is down for maintanance) as well as bias temperature adjustments.
The whole blasted mess has been political from the start. From Oil mogul/World Bank advisor Maurice Strong who chaired the UN’s First Earth Summit in 1972 (he chaired Rio too thanks to Bush) to Shell and BP initial funding of CRU to World Bank employee Robert Watson as IPCC chair from 1997 to 2002. Watson is currently the Chief Scientist/ Senior Adviser to the World Bank for Sustainable Development (Agenda 21.) A lesser know figure is Ged Davis former VP of Shell who was facilitator of the last IPCC emissions scenarios. (found in Climategate e-mails)
You do not have to know a darn thing about science to see the scam, all you have to do is follow the politics and see who is reaping large bennies from the scare. Dr Evans sums it up nicely in Climate Coup – The Politics.

Kelvin Vaughan

Ian W says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:47 am
Of more interest is an exercise where a standard sheet of graph paper is used where each square represents a degree C. WIth temperatures over the Earth varying from say – 50degC to +50degC the 0deg C line is along the center of the page. Now using a fine pencil plot the average temperature adjusted by the anomalies in the average as in the graph above. Now add error lines above and below the temperature line.
Now show the plot to an average person and try to get them excited about the variation in ‘global temperatures’.
I was told by a statistician once that any graph that does not show the zero axis is biassed.

Eli has asked Dr. Roy before. Crickets at 12. but it’s nice to know there are bunnies in this patch. Lazy ones, but bunnies none the less. Typhoon raises an interesting point, but not the one Eli thinks he is asking. Assuming a set of measurements (the actual returns from the satellites or the readings at various stations) how do you determine the ability to determine a mean and a statistical error and the variability. Not so simple.
One approach is to hold out a subset and compare the subset values to the values of the rest of the set (see rural station subset in GISS), or to add additional stations (see BEST) and compare. Another might be to compare satellite and surface sets. All approaches yield the same answer wrt mean values and variability and there are discussions of the annual and spatial variability in the literature. Wood for Trees, or Nick Stokes JAVA plotter are your answer.
REPLY: Perhaps if you asked using your real name, and your university affiliation, rather than the fake name and lagomorphic affiliations you go by all the time, Dr. Spencer might consider your request on the up and up, rather than your usual snark baiting cowardice – Anthony

DWR54

Bob Tisdale says:
“DWR54 says: “With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?”
Except the warm water that fuels an El Nino comes from the western tropical Pacific, not the east. The pocket of warm water in the east could upset the trade winds, though, which would then lead to an El Nino.”
Thank you. I was referring to the view that pooling of warm water in the west coast of Central/South America resulting from Kelvin waves flowing from the east is often regarded as the early stage of El Niño conditions.
The SST map posted earlier indicated that warm water was beginning to accumulate in that region. Is that the case, to your knowledge?

Gail Combs

Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 10, 2012 at 4:32 am
…says The page you requested was not found on this server
______________________
Sorry my computer is cranky this morning (mouse dying I think) try
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
or go to top and Edmin’s first comment at May 10, 2012 at 12:28 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/uah-global-temperature-up-in-april/#comment-981036

Robbie

Will the temperature go up in May and June as well????
Then it will make 2012 another very warm year indeed. One for the record books again.

Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:57 am
> Correction re NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature plot:
> http://s18.postimage.org/m38q251lz/global_temperature_NASA_GISS.png
Hmm, that took me to a “real” web page http://postimage.org/image/bt6b2wbqd/ but it appears just to display the .png file – clicking on “download data” is part of the image, not the HTML.
Why did you make a copy of GISS’s image? Are you collecting them over time? If so, do you have an image or data from 5-10 years ago? I’m curious if GISS’s downward adjustment of past data shows up in the graph.

Nigel Harris

So here we are, ENSO-neutral and coming out of a prolonged La Niña, with solar activity at a very low level, and yet the UAH global temperature is at a higher level than it reached at any time from the start of the record in 1979 to the super-El Niño in 1998. Can anyone explain this?

lookupitseasy

Kelvin Vaughan:
“I was told by a statistician once that any graph that does not show the zero axis is biassed.”
——-
Perhaps you were told that once, but if so, you probably shouldn’t take advice from this person in the future. Particularly in the context of temperatures, this comment makes no sense: why zero C and not zero F or zero K? (Similarly, one has to wonder why Ian W doesn’t simply go all-out and display the temperatures on a scale from absolute zero to the temperature of the surface of the sun if he really wants to make his point. Though honestly I think his comment mostly makes the point that any data set can be presented in a way that intentionally obscures what’s interesting about it; people who are interested in understanding how things work use temperature anomolies for a reason.)

roger says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:12 am
Typhoon says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
Perhaps you can hear the sound of celestial harps and Terpsichore instructing myriads of Cherubim and Seraphim in joyful dance, performed to the tune of “give me that old time religion”, on a severely restricted, rounded, metallic floor.
Who needs error bars when you have conviction.
Indeed.
No uncertainty in post-modern science.

Scottish Sceptic says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:24 am
“One thing I’ve learnt since watching global temperatures, is that whenever you see a pattern, whenever you think you can predict what is going to happen …. you find you can’t.
So here’s my prediction: …. my prediction that it is unpredictable will be proven wrong and it will (appear) predictable.

You win!.
It is always a pleasure to me, month by month, to see the global average lower tropospheric temperature follow indeed slavish twice the Big band sound of 11 synodic frequencies of the planets. Its getting some colder on Earth next decades.
V.

Steve Keohane

Robbie says: May 10, 2012 at 5:38 am
Will the temperature go up in May and June as well????
Then it will make 2012 another very warm year indeed. One for the record books again.

With the average catastrophic anthropogenic warming as measured by UAH for 2012 with 30+ years of unmitigated warming now averaging at .055°C, another unprecedented heat record!
/sarc

Stephen Wilde: Thanks for the reply. Since you are a wordsmith by trade (a lawyer) you understand the significance of the word “fails” in a sentence, so I responded to that.
Regards

Henry@Roy
Hi Roy. I have gone through a considerable excercise to check the surface weather stations
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
These 44 stations added all together tell me that earth has started cooling from 1994
which confirm Orssengo’s predictions as well
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
What puzzles me is that your UAH graph going by the black line seems to suggest it is the other way. (from 1994) . That cannot be right? I am afraid I am going to have to go with my own instinct which means I am not going to trust the satelites anymore. How do they calibrate their equipment? Exactly on what is your zero line based on?

Kip Hansen

At the risk of seeming to complain about too much transparent data, these monthly updates might be more reader friendly if the long raw data listing was a link that opened the data listing in a new window/tab for those who wanted to scrape it out for home use. Listing it in the blog entry in current form is informative for the average reader (one can’t visually understand the data from the listing).

Kip Hansen

Oops…’not informative for the average reader….’

Edim

“So here we are, ENSO-neutral and coming out of a prolonged La Niña, with solar activity at a very low level, and yet the UAH global temperature is at a higher level than it reached at any time from the start of the record in 1979 to the super-El Niño in 1998. Can anyone explain this?”
The climate system is ‘getting ready’ for the deep drop, the thermal inertia is delaying the decline, sea temperatures need some time, ice need a bit of recovery, which is already beginning. Have patience!

Edim

“With warm water pooling off the coast of Central America, it looks more likely to be leaning towards El Niño rather than La Niña conditions, surely?”
Maybe, I was thinking something like neutral to slightly positive for a while (few weeks/months) and then La Nina, maybe super La-Nina? After ~2015, we will experience La Nina dominant period (after the sc24 plateau), surely.

Stephen Wilde

“Since you are a wordsmith by trade (a lawyer) you understand the significance of the word “fails” in a sentence, so I responded to that.”
Bob, I find that I use words in a very technical and cold fashion and do not always anticipate an emotional impact. To my lawyerly mind the phrase ‘fails to’ is almost synonymous with ‘doesn’t ‘ and so an emotional impact was not actually intended but I will try harder in future to avoid potentially loaded words.

Edim

Or in one word, Hysteresis.

DWR54 says: “The SST map posted earlier indicated that warm water was beginning to accumulate in that region. Is that the case, to your knowledge?”
Yup. In fact I mentioned it in a sea surface temperature update a couple of months ago:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/february-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
And it still appears in the map in April’s update:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/0-map.png
Keep in mind, though, that two unusual warming spikes in the Southeastern tropical Pacific (40S-20S, 90W-70W) preceded the 2009/10 El Niño, but the bigger spike in 2008 preceded a La Niña.
http://i49.tinypic.com/ncnxud.jpg
Regards

fredb

Edim: the statement that “The climate system is ‘getting ready’ for the deep drop” without any provided justification seems the most bizarre assertion … unless you said that tongue in cheek? I for one would be very interested in a reasoned response to the question posed by Nigel Harris.

mertoniannorm

For those of us playing the home version of the climate game (at woodfortrees) why is it that the flat temps over the last fifteen years go unreported:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/plot/uah/last:180/plot/rss/last:180/plot/gistemp/last:180/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend/plot/uah/last:180/trend/plot/rss/last:180/trend/plot/gistemp/last:180/trend
Instead we see apocalyptic (his word choice) articles from the likes of Jim Hansen in yesterday’s NYTimes, and folks who should know better doing backflips to make his lousy predictions over yesteryear look good. Is this simply Chicken Little journalism? Why is it so hard for people to say “we don’t actually know”.

Werner Brozek

With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.
In comparison, with the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope as close to 0 as possible range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is flat for all practical purposes. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055083 per year.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (includes April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months
3. GISS: since April 2001 or 11 years even
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (includes April)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 4 months
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0055 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 4 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with GISS gives the same conclusion.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend

Ian W

lookupitseasy says:
May 10, 2012 at 6:29 am
Kelvin Vaughan:
“I was told by a statistician once that any graph that does not show the zero axis is biassed.”
——-
Perhaps you were told that once, but if so, you probably shouldn’t take advice from this person in the future. Particularly in the context of temperatures, this comment makes no sense: why zero C and not zero F or zero K? (Similarly, one has to wonder why Ian W doesn’t simply go all-out and display the temperatures on a scale from absolute zero to the temperature of the surface of the sun if he really wants to make his point. Though honestly I think his comment mostly makes the point that any data set can be presented in a way that intentionally obscures what’s interesting about it; people who are interested in understanding how things work use temperature anomolies for a reason.)

People who want to obscure what is actually going on use averaged atmospheric temperature for a reason.
1. Atmospheric temperature tells you nothing atbout atmospheric heat content. The reason the ‘temperature’ went up with the last measurment could easily be a drop in humidity. WIthout knowledge of the atmospheric humidity and therefore its enthalpy measuring temperature is totally and completely meaningless. As everyone is concerned about heat content then the metric used should be Kilo Joules per Kilogram. In those terms a humid misty morning in Louisiana at 75F has twice the heat content in Kj/Kg than a 100F dry day in Arizona. But all the lemmings will be saying “Isn’t Arizona Hot – it’s global warming!”.
2. For the reason at (1) averaging temperature between ultra dry antarctic and extremely humid tropics just displays ignorance and generates an even more meaningless figure. (Quote:”it’s as useful as an average phone number.”) A one degree rise in atmospheric temperature in the dry antarctic requires hugely less energy than a one degree rise at the equator. But who cares right? After all it’s only climate ‘science’.
3. This is then compounded by using anomalies rather than actual figures meaning differences between meaningless averages all on elastic scales. But as its anomalies the actual temperatures don’t have to be shown so that allows 4
4. As even using anomalies does not come up with sufficient big numbers to worry the ignorant the scales on the displays are compressed in time and extended in degrees of ‘anomaly’ to make minor noise variations that are well within the extreme error bars look as if something important was happening.
So have a look at Atmospheric Enthalpy – go on Lookupitseasy

Mike Lewis

@Ian W – Your post about atmospheric heat content hit me like a pie in the face. Hasn’t atmospheric humidity been declining for some time now? I thought there was something recently posted about that. So is the recent “warming” attributable to that fact alone? Makes one wonder…

dmmcmah

All this worry about a tenth of a degree in temperature.