UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2012: +0.37 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for June (+0.37 °C) was up from May 2012 (+0.29 °C). Click on the image for the super-sized version:
The 4th 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 1 -0.089 -0.058 -0.120 -0.137
2012 2 -0.111 -0.014 -0.209 -0.276
2012 3 +0.111 +0.129 +0.094 -0.106
2012 4 +0.299 +0.413 +0.185 -0.117
2012 5 +0.292 +0.444 +0.141 +0.033
2012 6 +0.369 +0.540 +0.199 +0.140
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.
==================================
I have to update the WUWT sidebar widget manually, since the fetching code has failed on it…I’ll do that tonight.
I don’t normally defend Hansen or his ilk but let’s be fair here. In 1988 Hansen gave 3 scenarios – all of which generally predicted warming. We most certainly have had warming. You can argue that the warming is not as great as that predicted by Hansen (given the CO2 emission levels) but you cannot deny warming has occurred.
We have read of a number of “anti-AGW” predictions which predict cooling (from 1998, 2003, …etc) – none of which has yet been shown to be correct. We have just had back to back La Nina events – and weak solar activity – yet UAH anomalies remain at the elevated levels they have been over the past decade. Anomalies during the recent La Nina were higher than during the 1986/87 EL NINO which happened to be during the strong 21 and 22 cycles..
Don’t forget also that Solar Cycle 23 was not a particualrly strong cycle . The sun hasn’tbeen particularly active for about 20 years. There is no cooling in evidence – yet. On the contrary, I suspect there is still quite a strong underlying warming trend which will become more evident as the lagged effect of La Nina fades.
Further reinforcing the obvious sine wave shape for the smoothed signal.
A realistic but fascinating white paper was published in the current issue of IEEE Spectrum, the official publication of my professional electrical engineering society, IEEE. As a Life Member, I believe it deserves wider publication. Copy and utilize this link to read it:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy
P. Solar says:
July 6, 2012 at 12:14 pm
There is a clear annual cycle in the “anomalies” that shows increased seasonal variation in the NH is dominating the global mean. The lesser inertia of NH would probably cause its changes to be larger and to dominate any such change in behaviour.
The atmosphere above land is getting warmer in the summer, but not in winter. Likely cause is increased insolation from decreased clouds (and aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds). The same effect is also causing Arctic sea ice melt, south facing (but not north facing) glacier retreat, and the satellite – surface temperature divergence (surface temperatures are derived from min/max and surface minimum temperatures are particularly sensitive to solar insolation changes, whereas satellite temps are not).
Although the satellite-surface divergence has disappeared in the last 3 or 4 years. I’m not sure why. Could be natural variability. Could be a solar effect. Could be an artifact of globally averaging a local and regional phenomena (aerosols).
Thanks to Dr. Spencer, as ever.
But do we really need 3 dee-pees? Surely the satellite isn’t *that* accurate? 🙂
2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets
2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not be the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give the ranking by assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year.
With the UAH anomaly for June at 0.369, the average for the first six months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369)/6 = 0.145. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged at least the June value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.257 and it would rank 3rd. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.) In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.71. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record or to even come in second.
With the GISS anomaly for May at 0.65, the average for the first five months of the year is (0.34 + 0.41 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.65)/5 = 0.484. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the May anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 4th.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for May at 0.474, the average for the first five months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.482 + 0.474)/5 = 0.3344. This is about the same as the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the May anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th.
With the sea surface anomaly for April at 0.292, the average for the first four months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292)/4 = 0.242. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the April anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 12th.
With the RSS anomaly for May at 0.233, the average for the first five months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.074 + 0.333 + 0.233)/5 = 0.0922. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 16th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the May anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 11th.
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but a record is out of reach on all sets.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 9 months to 15 years and 7 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which WAS 0.00103655 per year or 0.10/century in May, but the June value is not on WFT yet, however it will definitely go up and while it will not be flat, the slope will not be statistically significant.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 9 months (goes to June, but note * above)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 1 month (goes to May)
3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 4 months (goes to April)
6. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to May)
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to May using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/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 GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0046 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 6 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
Gunga Din says:
AT 256 PM…THE TEMPERATURE AT THE PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT REACHED 99 DEGREES. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 98 SET
IN 1881.”
____________________
It is good to know that Columbus had an international airport 22 years before the Wright’s first flight. Not much microclimate site change since that time, what do you bet?
Richard G says:
July 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Gunga Din says:
AT 256 PM…THE TEMPERATURE AT THE PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT REACHED 99 DEGREES. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 98 SET
IN 1881.”
____________________
It is good to know that Columbus had an international airport 22 years before the Wright’s first flight. Not much microclimate site change since that time, what do you bet?
==================================================================
It seems there have been lots of changes here. Including what was written down in years past.
BTW The Weather Channel said this morning that the record was set in 1911. I don’t remember what they said the old record was.
Broken records are beginning to sound like broken records. Just change the golden oldies to whatever suits you.
(But it was hot here. The temperature on my front porch reached 100.9* F.)
I am so tired of warmists claiming that the last 15 years of temperatures are the warmist on record without detrending the natural increase best represented by The CET. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Better yet lets simply look at the acceleration of UAH temps and note that they are decelerating unlike warmist predictions. This is also clearly the case for global temps best proxy sea level rise.
Therefore instead of obsessing over linear trends lets remove then and see whats left.
richcar1225,
Like lying with statistics, people can lie with charts. The one you posted is a good example. The following chart is based on the same data, but you can see that there is no “acceleration” or upward spike in temperatures. The sharp recent rise in global temperatures is a fictional artifact of using an arbitrary zero baseline chart. By using a long term trend chart, we see that temperatures are following along the same trend line that they have been on since the Little Ice Age. [The seven additional charts are from different cities, and they all show a similar gently rising trend from the LIA, with no recent acceleration.]
This chart shows it better. The long-term rising trend is intact, and there is no unusual acceleration due to the ≈40% rise in CO2. If rising CO2 made any measurable difference, then that large increase in CO2 would have caused the recent end of the chart to show rapidly accelerating temperatures. But it doesn’t.
This Wood For Trees chart shows the same thing: no acceleration in global temperatures, which remain within their long term parameters.
Here is another look at global temperatures, within their long term parameters.
And here is another view of long term global temperature anomalies, with a normal y-axis.
The planet is still recovering from the LIA, so naturally temperatures are going to be warmer now than they were a hundred years ago. But if CO2 had any measurable effect, we would certainly see an accelerating temperature trend. Since that is not happening, the conclusion is inescapable: the effect of CO2 on global temperatures must be much smaller than claimed.
Joeldshore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/uah-global-temperature-for-june-2012-up-slightly/#comment-1026026
Henry says
Thanks. I had a look at all of those fits. There is not one there that fits with a correlation coefficient of more than 0.4. That is too small. It all looks random. It means you cannot do anything with those fits in terms of prediction. In fact, looking at those results, I would say there is something seriously wrong with them. Something is not right.
OTOH
look at my binominal fit for the drop in maxima observed here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
it has a correlation coefficient of 0.995. In fact, after adding Reagan airport, it ramped up to 0.996.
It shows me earth is cooling and you can be at least 99.5% sure about that.
UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2012: +0.37 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for June (+0.37 °C) was up from May 2012 (+0.29 °C).
I have updated my GHI 11 comparison graph with this new data point:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_gl_vs_solar11.gif
V.
the1pag;
Thanks! Here’s a revealing excerpt from that article:
We really need to start seeing more months in the negative. Otherwise, the solar theory isn’t going to look so good….
I would have to agree with most of the other critisms against the “entertainment polynomial” as well. Even with the discalimer I was using it to judge where temperatures were heading. The temps are definetely going up, just not as fast as the alarminsts predicted. There is no need to “entertain” the idea that they are heading down. Just let the facts speak for themselves. Most skeptics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time. To what degree is still uncertain.
The correct trend line should be +0.1 deg C per decade, no? Or are we calling a top for the recovery from the LIA?
Roy – That “entertaining” line represents your intepretation of the data, like it or not. If you have a better line, then use that. If you don’t have a better line, then people will think the a leading expert in the matter has stated a view. The problem is, if the anomaly remains at +0.3 deg C, then it is falisifying your implicit forecast: the gap between the data and the line will continue to grow. It’s just the reverse of what has happened to Hansen.
So the global June temp. is .05 warmer than it was last June.
MattN says:July 7, 2012 at 8:33 am
>> http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_gl_vs_solar11.gif <<
We really need to start seeing more months in the negative. Otherwise, the solar theory isn’t going to look so good….
Not really. We can have a look back in time for month, years, centuries or millennia on both, well known temperature proxies and the well known solar tide functions:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_x.gif *)
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/GHI_11_ghi4_.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
We can have high correlation coefficients which have more power than a negative trend of some more months.
There is no theory, and because of this, there is no need to reject any. *) There are phase coherent data from global sea level oscillations and solar tide functions.
V.
Brian D Says
Interactive temp, graph is no longer on discover site, Gone Forever?
No, Still there but very hard to find, took me quite a while to find it and still don`t know how I did it.
I have just “Googled” AMSU Temperature and you should get a direct link to the page
Dave H
Ian Hoder says
Most skeptics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time.
Henry says
Count me out, please. With all the results on the table I am not even sure if more CO2 has a net warming or a net cooling effect.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
You might want to follow the discussion here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/the-sun-has-changed-its-character/#comment-1027412
HenryP says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:14 am
Ian Hoder says
Most skeptics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time.
Henry says
Count me out, please. With all the results on the table I am not even sure if more CO2 has a net warming or a net cooling effect.
Ok – most skeptics who understand basic atmospheric physics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time.
John Finn says
Ok – most skeptics who understand basic atmospheric physics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time.
Henry says
John, you cannot make a statement like that. Here we discuss the results of your tests or the results of others, that you believe in, and that prove your position.
For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing – like the closed box experimenst – do not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).
I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me. In the case of CO2, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 could be underestimated, i.e. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 may be only 1% of its total energy output, but how many Watts per m2 does it cause on earth? Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin.
CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. It is a process called photo synthesis. It provides for our food and all the (coloured) liquids that we drink. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. The process is endothermic, and it appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect (of CO2) might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
So, where are your results on that amount of cooling caused by the CO2?
Therefore, there is a good chance that the total net effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be close to zero or even slight cooling. …
I don’t know. You tell me, JOHN!! Bring it on!!
Unless we come up with the right test methods and measurements, we will never know for sure. For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
The above results show that it has been cooling since 1994.
(The nature of past global warming- and current global cooling rates is that of a parabolic curve, suggesting a natural process. Obviously the actual “global” cooling is still so little as to go largely unnoticed: it is only about 0.2 degees K since 2000, which probably falls within the error of normal thermometers. I suspect the error on what we get from the satellites might be even worse than 0.2 degrees C – I have never heard Roy say anything about the error to me, when I asked, and I am still asking about it…..Roy?)
So, John, sorry, according to me, there is no AGW except due to the (more) snow that you might be having to move away next winter.
HenryP says:
July 9, 2012 at 10:46 am
John Finn says
Ok – most skeptics who understand basic atmospheric physics understand that added C02 does increase temperature over time.
Henry says
John, you cannot make a statement like that. Here we discuss the results of your tests or the results of others, that you believe in, and that prove your position.
Henry
The earth radiates energy to space from all levels of the atmosphere including the surface. In the upper (drier) layers of the atmosphere energy is radiated mainly from CO2 molecules. We can see this from emission spectra observed from orbiting satellites.
As more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere – particularly in those upper layers – the average height at which energy is emitted increases. This means energy is emitted from colder layers (i.e. higher -> colder) which, in turn, means that the rate of emission decreases ( a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Now we have an imbalance where the amount of energy entering the earth’s climate system is greater than the amount leaving. Basic Thermodynamics tells us that this will result in warming. Warming will continue until the incoming/outgoing energy balance is restored.
I don’t make any claims about how much warming will occur. I doubt the more extreme claims are correct, but I have no doubt that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will make the planet warmer than it would otherwise be. A temperature rise of around 1 deg C (as predicted by various radiative transfer models) looks to be about right.
John says
…., means that the rate of emission decreases ( a consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Now we have an imbalance where the amount of energy entering the earth’s climate system is greater than the amount leaving.
Henry@John
that was not the question:
/the question was: how much (more) sunlight 0-5 um is deflected away from earth due to (more) CO2 in the air and how much more cooling is caused by more greening
(photo synthesis consumed ca. 8 x 10power 18 J /day according to a paper in 1974)
/and how does this balance against your claimed warming due to (more) CO2 14-16 um?
In the right dimensions please: – time is important since we only have 12 hours sunlight per day and 24 hours earthshine per day. If you can find me the correct results that prove that there is more warming, you must be a genius. I could not find them.
I say: The “imbalance” claimed was wrongly attributed to CO2…. . The applied logic was: “let us have a planet, let us add some CO2 and let us see if the temperature went up. It did. So that must be it”. Models are no good. I found the “forcings” calculated to have been largely been based on observed warming patterns from the past and the subsequent increases noted of the GHG’s concerned.. . (IPPC 2007 AR4)
Worst case scenario in science: assume you know the cause of a “problem” and work from the wrong end trying to find a “solution”. (happened only once to me, but I learned my lesson)
my findings are clear and repeatable:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
The above results show that it has been cooling since 1994.
The nature of past global warming- and current global cooling rates is that of a parabolic curve, suggesting a natural process. Obviously the actual “global” cooling is still so little as to go largely unnoticed: it is only about 0.2 degees K since 2000, which probably falls within the error of normal thermometers.
Update on my blog
I made an interesting discovery.
According to my latest calculations, on the development of the speed of warming and cooling,
– looking at it on what energy we get from the sun -, ie. the maximum temperatures,
(whicho nobody who is anybody in climate science is plotting, except me, of course)
I get that global warming started somewhere in 1945 and global cooling started in 1995.
That is a cycle of 50 years.
Does that ring a bell somewhere?
There is very likely an ozone connection.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here