UAH global temperature, up somewhat

After the failure of UAH channel 5, is there still UAH data in UAH data ?

I am not well versed in the scientific work often referenced here but perusing the link that Stan provided I found this:
“In the G integration, in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration is increased with time, the thickness of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean is reduced markedly from 3 m t less than 1 m during the 100-year period… It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” p. 795
“In the D integration, in which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is decreased with time, the thickness of sea ice increases dramatically over the Arctic Ocean, but is reduced slightly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent. These changes of sea ice are opposite in sign from those of the G integration because the process involved is reversed as discussed in section 9a.” p. 795
However, in the conclusions…
“Obviously the credibility of the present study depends critically upon the ability of the present model to mimic the behavior of the actual ocean-atmosphere-land surface system… However, the surface flux adjustments of heat and water, which are needed to simulate the condition of the oceanic surface, are as large as those fluxes themselves. For example, the model tends to overestimate the precipitation in high latitudes and is partly responsible for the relatively large water flux adjustment needed there. It is possible that such a model bias results in the overestimation of the CO2-induced change of precipitation, and accordingly, the changes of near-surface salinity and thermohaline circulation. Further improvements…of the coupled model are urgently needed.” page 815
So, where does that leave us? An inquiring skeptic would like to know.

The paper does say,
The equilibrium response (of surface air temperature) is particularly large along the coast of the Antarctic Continent, enhanced by the poleward retreat of sea ice
Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent.

I originally raised Antarctic sea ice to stimulate a discussion about any relationship between sea ice extent, SH troposphere temperatures and intensity of Southern Ocean low pressure systems.
I’d expect increased sea ice to shift the tracks of low pressure systems northward, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. What appears to be happening, is weaker low pressure systems means less poleward heat transport allowing the sea ice to increase.
Is it the Southern Annular Mode?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SAM-what.shtml

Good observation geran :

Yeah, good catch UAH. Record cold in May and June, midwest plantings delayed, but our GOV SATs still see AGW.
Probably nothing funny going on here….

I don’t know about the SH, but in the NH since last fall we have been have record colds–unbelievable. Well I guess no one does believe it because we keep getting anomalies above the 30 year mean. What I don’t believe is the anomalies as recorded from satellites. I think something is wrong with the data and it will be exposed in the near future because the data do not relate to what we are experiencing here on the ground and all the broken cold records and late springs and freezing Europe and China etc..it simply doesn’t fit.

Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
Short-term trends (~15 years) fluctuate a great deal.
Yet I see them, or like them, being quoted all the time.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry-pick.

I simply noted how quickly the 15-yr trend can change when ENSOs are involved. That should give you some clue about the claimed 17-years or less of no global warming (which of course is not true at all).

The Manabe et al paper was certainly not a “cherry pick” — it is a scientific result, a prediction — and one that has come true.

Manfred, I think these trolls go to climate trolling classes and are given a list of stock responses to use. Which is why Stan couldn’t say where that paper supported his claim and why he was completely unaware it says the complete opposite of what he claimed.
Although the quality of trolls has markedly deteriorated recently. Big Green must have cut back on its trolling budget, and the lower pay just doesn’t attract quality candidates.

Of course they are down, Bob Tisdale.
And just a few short years ago, they were up, at 0.3 C/decade.
Where were you then?
Such short-term intervals fluctuate with the (oceanic) weather, and are not climatologically meaningful.
Yet they are quoted all the time. Unscientifically.
I think I have made my point.

They’re down from their peak in 2007.
And they are going back up.
Shades of 1997.
In any case, no metric that fluctuates so quickly can be a useful metric for global warming, which is a centuries/millenia-long phenomena.
So what is a better metric?

Philip, it’s like you can’t read.
Manabe et al, pg 795, top of right-hand column:
“…resulting in the increase of sea ice….”