UAH July global temperature, significantly down

Nigel Harris says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?”
We like it when it gets cooler because it falsifies CO2AGW more. You caught us there.

Nice work, Nigel.

Nigel Harris says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“Anyone spot any bias (intentional or otherwise) in these descriptions?”
When it drops , this is significant.
When it stays the same, as it has basically done for 16 or so years, this is also significant
Why ? Because all the so-called climate scientists tell us that CO2 drives temperatures.
And they are manifestly WRONG.

MiCro says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Sun Spot says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Incredibly cold summer here in southern Ontario Canada, highs around 21 degree C on a good day.
Same here south of Lake Erie, other than a week and a half or so in early July that was hot, we’ve had 70-80F highs this summer.
Here In Red Deer Alberta it’s a whopping 17C

The link under the graph: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/april/April2013_map.jpg (April 2013)
is wrong, it should be http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/July/JULY2013map.png (July 2013).

From Bob Tisdale on August 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm:

There’s an unusual warming event in the North Pacific in July that I’ll be reporting on hopefully tomorrow.

Godzilla?
Perhaps that movie annoyed him, and he was thinking about showing up for the mid-July release. But after the decades of propagandist filmography convincing us such results of nuclear testing were ludicrously non-existent, with successful franchises such as Power Rangers making the concept of giant monsters even more laughable, he likely decided to “stay home”, blow off some steam, and remain unreal.

How about this paper?
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/8266p3740v0rnm77/
“Andries Rosema1, Steven Foppes1, Joost van der Woerd1
1EARS Earth Environment Monitoring Ltd., Delft, the Netherlands Kanaalweg 1, 2628 EB Delft, the Netherlands
Abstract
24 year of Meteosat hourly thermal infrared data have been used to study planetary surface temperature change. Thermal infrared radiation in the 10.5-12.5mm spectral window is not affected by CO2 and only slightly by atmospheric water vapor. Satellite thermal infrared data have been converted to brightness temperatures as prescribed by Eumetsat. Hourly brightness temperature images were then composed to corresponding noon and midnight temperature data fields. The resulting data fields were cloud filtered using 10, 20 and 30 day maximum temperature substitution. Filtered data were subsequently averaged for two 10 yearly periods: 1986-1995 and 1996-2005. Finally the change in brightness temperature was determined by subtraction. In addition nine locations were selected and data series were extracted and studied for the period 1982-2006. Our observations point to a decrease in planetary temperature over almost the entire hemisphere, most likely due to an increase of cloudiness. Two small areas are found where a considerable temperature increase has occurred. They are explained in terms of major human interventions in the hydrological balance at the earth surface.”

Hi AndyG55
I have been watching the same thing for 2 or 3 years now. I take the 1997/2001 El Nino/La Nina cycle out by taking the periods Dec 1978 to March 1997 (the latter date when the ENSO index was -0.1, the start of the 1997 El Nino) and the period June 2001 (ENSO index -0.1, the end of the La Nina) to the present. The trend for those two periods are at present identical at 0.36 degrees C per century.
Looking at it this way, the trend determinded by drawing a line through the entire graph (1.44 Degrees per century) is really determined mostly by the step increase from 1997 to 2001.
The first period is 18 yrs 4 months. The second period so far is 12 years. Be interesting to see what the results are 6 years from now. If the trends are close I will really have my doubts about how much influence C)2 has on temperature. Using UAH v5.6.
RSS results for the same period are 0.72 and -0.72 up to May 2013.

dp says:
August 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
None of these numbers gives any idea what the energy balance looks like – are we accumulating or shedding energy from the sun?

Atmospheric temperature provides very little information on atmospheric energy content as the atmospheric enthalpy is not recorded. Apparently, the atmospheric humidity is falling; it is entirely possible that the positive atmospheric temperature anomalies are entirely due to the reduction in atmospheric enthalpy.
During the recent media induced frenzy about Death Valley temperatures, the temperature in Death Valley was around 125F; the temperature in Central Florida was around 85F. The energy content of the air in Central Florida in Kilojoules per Kilogram, was nearly twice that of the energy content of the air in Death Valley. This is because the humidity in Central Florida was 90% or so and in Death Valley it was close to zero.
It is probable that the entire global warming hooplah is due to use of averages of incorrect metrics.

I can’t even think of a good way to take Earth’s temperature.
I can. Take the temperature T measured in each cell of a surface-spanning spherical icosahedral tessellation (that can be rescaled at will to a finer-grained coverage without any Jacobean-linked cell distortion like the one that occurs in spherical polar coordinates or latitude/longitude). Evaluate T^4 per cell. Sum it over the cells. Divide by the number of cells. Take the fourth root of the result. Do at least one subdivision of the tessellation (e.g. halve the cell size, get 4x as many cells) and repeat. Compare the two. Iterate the adaptive subdivision until the result converges, using the scaling of the variation of the subdivision and the eight order cumulant to estimate the error.
This root-root-mean-square average is the only measure of temperature that matters, as it is the “radiation temperature”, directly proportional to the Earth’s radiation rate ignoring its atmosphere. Pre-weighted by surface area, no less.
The current mean temperature is utterly irrelevant and indeed HIDES the radiation temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is actually capable of both warming and cooling that completely overwhelms the GHE while GHGs are neutral, increasing, or decreasing due to seemingly minor changes in the way heat is distributed. Atmospheric/oceanic circulation trends that increase mixing are warming. Ones that decrease mixing are cooling. That is, if tropical heat migrates to the poles, it is net warming. If tropical heat stays in the tropics, it is net cooling.
IMO the LIA was caused not by GHGs, not by solar variation per se, but by a transient variation in global circulation (which might or might not have been linked to solar variation, but I don’t have any good feel for how it might have been so linked). For a while the tropics heated up a little, increasing their radiative efficiency rapidly, but the heat was not conveyed north and south to the temperate and polar regions. The pole cooled more than the tropics heated up, because of the T^4.
Doing an adaptive iterative T^4 rrms average of the temperature (especially comparing the result to T average and T^2 rms average) is highly instructive in other ways as well. It reveals directly how inhomogeneous the temperature distribution is — is the current mean temperature arising — as some above suggested — because a small area is a lot warmer while the bulk of the area is a little cooler? You’ll never know looking at T alone, but you can tell at a glance by looking at the histogram of temperature anomalies, you can tell at a glance by comparing the various cumulants, evaluating the skew (did I mention that we might as well form the third order cumulant as well?) and kurtosis.
The bizarre thing is that the mean alone is almost completely mean-ingless, to a statistician. Without knowing the variance and other moments of the distribution, one doesn’t even know how reliable the measured mean is as a predictor of the true mean. In the case of radiatively cooled Earth, the mean TEMPERATURE is just great — if you want to know the enthalpy or something like that and can calculate it because you know heat capacities per cell (which we are clueless about, of course). Otherwise, it is rrms T^4 that matters in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
rgb