From UAH:
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
August temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Tropics: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
July temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.29 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.27 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.51 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Sept. 5, 2017:
In a typical Northern Hemisphere summer pattern, the globe showed no strong warm or cold regions in August, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “There were some cool places, such as Antarctica and the northern continental U.S., but other places were modestly warm.
“In a pattern that began in June, 2016, following the demise of a major El Niño, global average temperatures have been in a small range of variation, from +0.21 to +0.46 C, or from about +0.38 to +0.83 Fahrenheit.”
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in August was in the Western Antarctic, near the UK’s Halley station. Temperatures there were a chilly 2.64 C (about 4.75° F) cooler than normal for the Antarctic winter.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in August was southwest of the town of Seymchan in western Russia. Temperatures there averaged 3.70 C (about 6.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.. Temperatures in the tropics are essentially “normal” relative to the 30-year average.
The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
I understand that this is very well intentioned and seriously calculated. Since I no longer believe there is any such thing as a “global temperature”, it strikes me as something that is about as meaningful as a report on the changing colors of Santa Claus’ mood ring.
UAH doesn’t calculate a “global temperature”, it’s a global average anomaly.
Okay, then make that … about as meaningful as a report on the saturation depth of the colors of a Santa Claus’ mood ring.
But don’t they have to calculate the global average temperature for each month for the baseline from 1981 to 2010 in order to calculate the anomaly? Or do they calculate the regional average temperature for each month for the baseline?
From what I’ve gathered of the process, the station temps are used to get the 1981-2010 average temp baseline for each month of the year — all the January temps from 1981-2010 are averaged for the January baseline, all the February temps from 1981-2010 are averaged for the February baseline, etc. These monthly baselines are subtracted from each year’s average for that month to get the anomaly. So if the Jan 1981-2010 baseline was 15 C, and your record started in Jan 1930 and the average for that month was 13.5 C, you’d subtract 13.5 – 15 to get the Jan 1930 anomaly of -1.5 C. This is carried on for the length of the record for each month.
When I do mine, I leave out months with less than 14 days of good data to err on the side of accuracy.
“When I do mine, I leave out months with less than 14 days of good data to err on the side of accuracy. ”
–
Surely fill in an average?? Or something?
Leaving data out causes an anomaly.
“When I do mine, I leave out months with less than 14 days of good data to err on the side of accuracy. ”
–
Surely fill in an average?? Or something?
Leaving data out causes an anomaly.
The point about anomaly verses temperature, is that the original claim was that there was no such thing as a global temperature. I can see the argument for that as it depends on how you define “global”, given there are huge differences in temperature across the globe. This is especially a problem for satellite data which is measuring temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and so will be much colder than at the surface.
However, with an anomaly this is less of a problem, as you only have to look at the change in temperature, and these vary a lot less across the globe.
The ONLY average temperature that has any relevance to how the climate responds to change is the EQUIVALENT temperature of an ideal black body emitting the same average emissions as the virtual surface in direct thermal equilibrium with the Sun, i.e. the solid and liquid surface BELOW the atmosphere. Both global and local anomalies are meaningless unless expressed as a proportional change in emissions, which for a 1C anomaly means about a 5.4 W/m^2 difference in emissions from the nominal 385 W/m^2, or less than 1.5% and for a 3C difference is about 4.2%.
Notice that the entire range of data’ expressed in the August lower troposphere anomaly plot is less than +/- 5% and that for the vast majority of the planet, the ‘anomaly’ is less than +/- 2%. Also notice that the largest anomalies are near the poles, where the average temperatures are lower and a smaller change in emissions results in a larger change in temperature. If this plot was expressed as a percentage anomaly relative to average surface emissions, rather than as an absolute temperature difference, the total range from max to min anomaly will be noticeably less.
This would make the last month the 3rd warmest August in the UAH record, the warmest outside an El Nino year.
Keep in mind we had weak El Nino conditions for much of this year. This warmth generally shows up in the satellite data with a lag of a few months.
Color me silly, but in looking at the first graph, Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978, I want to draw two rather level trend lines; the first from 1979 through approx 1995ish, and the second one from approx 1999 to present.
which why I don’t like any graphs with straight lines imposed up on me when I view them ! I like it even less when they start colouring stuff in , this heavily biases what the eye / brain perceives. “Bad, very bad”. 😉
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg
I agree. The whole idea of an anomaly is biased and scientifically ridiculous.
That step shows up in this Sensitivity to insolation graph, for 20 North to 30 North lat band of land based stations.
This is the insolation at these station divided by their temp response.
The rest of the extra-tropics can be found here.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
Guess there are no temperature stations in east Kansas …inaccuweather shows 5.6 F below average for the month of Aug…..we only made 90 twice …(90 is “normal ” )
Where ARE you , global warming ? 8>))
0
This is the lower troposphere temperature, and it shows cooler than average seasonal temperatures there anyhow. Wichita set a record low of 46 degrees this morning.
I don’t think they are measuring where I live in North Carolina either. We had 1 day above 96F versus 5-10 last year iirc. My electricity bill is down 20% year over year. Heck I have been driving to work in the morning with the heat slightly on and the rear defogger. Snow in Canada in August; frost predicted for the Midwest next week and we’re up .12 versus July?
Hate to break it to you but the US is not the “world”!!!
😉
Interesting, because Tony Hellar’s analysis of the U.S. surface stations max. raw (unadjusted) temps for U.S. summers shows that they are in decline. He has also released a downloadable program which will let you graph the raw data in various ways, aggregating over station latitudes of your choice.
Here in Lincoln, Nebraska we did not hit 90 degrees in August, most likely the first time that has happened.
I was surprised by this because both poles are below average and is purportedly where most warming has and will take place. I expect next month to be see a huge drop as the tropical Pacific continues to cool and it’s due to oscillate downward.
Harvey and Irma have pulled a non-trivial amount of energy out of the system as well.
They’ve pulled it out of the ocean into the lower troposphere …
Greg, surely the ‘chimney’ in the hurricane
conducts all this up in moist air and thrusts it up high enough for heat energy to go to outer space.
Don’t you know that temperatures at the ionosphere can change from -70°C to +225°C?
The more rarefied the substance the less energy is required to change its temperature. At the lower troposphere the water vapor content of the air is determinant for the amount of energy required to change its temperature, and the water vapor content of the air changes a lot. It is the absolute, not the relative humidity that matters.
Nearly all the energy comes from the Sun, and the time that it expends within the climate system bouncing from a place to other is highly variable. It can be reflected back by clouds immediately or be buried in the deep ocean for thousands of years.
This is really complex stuff, Forrester, and there are few people that really knows what is known about atmospheric dynamics. And what is known is not nearly enough to understand how it works.
I don’t know what determines the regional temperatures at the lower troposphere. We know pressure is the main thing, and pressure is very related to sea surface temperatures, and at the same time connected to processes that act at the tropopause or even higher. The atmosphere is dynamically coupled and stratospheric temperatures are similar to a mirror image of tropospheric temperatures. As a general rule it is believed that changes are more easily transmitted upwards than downwards because of the density gradient, but there are phenomena like Rossby waves and planetary waves that transmit energy and momentum upwards and facilitate that the stratosphere influence moves against the gradient, both at the poles and in the tropics.
The effects of the upper atmosphere are essentially unknown since it is really hard to study it.
Since we don’t know how the atmosphere works. We can’t say we know what effect greenhouse gases have or predict what is going to happen. It is all guesswork really.
Thanks Javier. What we do know about is the heat capacity of various layers, since that is largely based on density. Hence (to your point) the ionosphere can have wild temperature swings because there is so little material and radiative transfer becomes the primary mechanism. But (again to your point) the mechanisms for radiative transfer can be very interesting because accelerating and colliding charged particles radiate electromagnetic fields in a way that neutral, hot particles do not.
Nearly all comes for the sun ultimately. Much of it is stocked in the oceans which burp it out from time to time. There is also the latent heat of evaporation which is unseen ( thus called latent ).
“Bouncing around ” by a tenth of a degree is not “much”, it’s certainly less than the accuracy of the extraction process.
There is also the question of heat capacity: dry air and water vapour change by different amount in temperature for the same change in heat energy, so heat going from WV to air or vice versa will produce a change in “average” temperature, without any heat needing to enter or leave the system.
What surprises me is that there is so little variability.
Greg, I don’t really disagree with you but a tenth of a degree when it is pretended to be a global average temperature means a hell of a lot of heat energy taken in total. Given that, this variability speaks to the fact that this is absolutely not an accurate representation of the global average temperature. It is a pretend number applied to something we pretend to know! Or what some people pretend to know, at least.
I like the old graph better, as it is easier to see the information.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg
Temperatures appear to be in a slow decline since the El Niño, probably because there was no La Niña to cool them faster. I think it is likely they might continue going down slowly over the next year. Coming winter might see lower NAO values from low solar activity and East phase of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation, and this might tilt global temperatures slightly down. The effect should be stronger in a couple of years, when the solar minimum is reached and passed, as the effects are lagged 1-2 years.
same here, that is what Roy Spencer shows on his site. Don’t know why we got the misleading red and blue version here on WUWT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It now becomes a lot clearer that this was not a “super-duper” El Nino but a rather weak one on top of a high starting point. The ’98 one rose about 0.5 deg C above its baseline temp. This one barely 0.3 .
Remains to be seen whether there is a slow ramping down like the slow ramping up since 2011.
If we’re back to zero anomaly in 2021, with negative anomaly thereafter, Warmunistas will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. Or a lot of attacking of UAH.
if ….
I do not see much evidence of that happening so far, but all is possible.
I agree. There was a 2014 El Niño that was declared by the Japanese meteorological agency. It was a quasi-El Niño that primed the El Niño making it look very strong.
Greg,
I do. The 2017 average will be close to the 2015 average anomaly, hence it’s not unreasonable to assume that 2018 will resemble 2014, 2019 2013, etc.
Gloaty, I’m not a fan of linear extrapolation in climate , whichever way it goes. That has been the big follie of the last 30 years. Climate is not linear so fitting such a model on any scale is not informative about the future.
Seemed to me that it was several years of El Nino conditions because of the trade winds being weak at the time. A +-0.5 anomaly is just an arbitrary symptom of El Nino, more attention should be paid to the causes not the symptoms. Like having an infection, you don’t determine whether you got one or not by waiting until your temperature rises above an arbitrary number.
Greg,
It’s not a linear extrapolation. It’s noting that after El Ninos, GASTA drops. It’s cyclic. I expect the cycling to continue. It would be possible but unlikely for another El Nino to happen before a La Nina. IMO odds favor a La Nina.
The average anomaly in UAH data for 2015 was 0.27 degrees C. So far for 2017, it’s 0,32 degrees C. Who can say whether NH autumn and SH spring will bring (the were warm last year, from the El Nino), but Dec 2016 anomaly was 0.26 degrees C,
What, not whether.
So if the warmth is stacked in a few regions instead of spread out we get a lower global average number, right? And how do the error bars change with latitude?
One reason I surmise the global temperature bounces around so much is because temperature is dependent on pressure and humidity. Pressure and humidity would actually be much more enlightening for climate science, but harder to accurately measure and interpolate on a global scale.
For me the important thing is the line “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade”. That means that after close to 4 decades of measurements and coverage as we’ve ever had we are on a trend of +1.3 C per CENTURY all while using the “business as usual” approach to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Nothing to worry about.
“Why do these figures bounce around as much as they do?”
0.12 deg is not much. We probably have one decimal place too many in the data implying accuracy we don’t actually have.
The difference between the main data sets is often more than that. All claim to be correct..
MB,
It reminds me of religions. Every one claims to be the only one that knows the ‘true’ word of God. All others are heretics.
The Great God Gavin alone has the One True Data Set!
Those worshiping false climate gods must be cast into outer darkness, then there burn!
Or at least be sued.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif
Boy, it’s hard to see how the SH could be warmer. There is a lot of Coldwater almost everywhere.
Lag between surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature? Also, the UAH is a monthly average, the map above is a snapshot, and of an anomaly of an entirely different baseline as well.
It is NOAA so I assume it’s the 30yrs to 2010 as above.
No matter what colors, if any, are used to display the monthly global anomaly, the fact remains that we’re now experiencing the longest stretch of positive anomalies in the entire satellite record. While this should not be basis for any alarm, it does render suggestions of imminent cooling quite far-fetched. And as long as the anomalies continue to register regularly above ~0.25 Celsius, there’s scarcely any weakening of the 30-yr “trend.”
In the very short term, we are actually cooling already. Whatever past temperature trends were, they are not directly indicative of future trends. So it is not at all “far-fetched” to suggest imminent cooling so long as reasons for that possibility are given. Coherent reasons, that is. Not the baloney after the fact, “I predicted this using ‘climate math'” crap.
That’s true. The trend has now been down for almost two years, ie since late 2015.
IMO Javier above gives some compelling reasons to expect cooling over the next few years, at least.
Plus, what goes up, must come down. A critical error of consensus “climate science” is to imagine that whatever warming occurred after the 1977 PDO flip should continue indefinitely. Scientists in the late 1970s made the same mistake, when they supposed that the dramatic cooling from the 1940s would continue unabated.
Pray tell, what are the “coherent reasons” for imminent cooling in anything beyond trivially short periods?
Ocean cycles going negative, sun going quite.
For starters.
For starters. where is the brass-tacks demonstration that “[o]cean cycles going negative, sun going quite [sic!]” produces something more analytically based than hand-waving expectations of a sustained period of cooling in the immediate future.
This doesn’t make much sense. The baseline changes every 10 years, so in a warming world current temperatures are usually above the baseline. If you go back to old temperatures they are now below the baseline, but they were mostly above the baseline when this was lower.
But temperatures are always going up or down, so the time they are being considered must be stated. Most people are concerned with multidecadal trends, but we can also consider shorter trends as we do during an El Niño. For the past 18 months temperatures have decreased as a logical decline from El Niño warming. They will certainly revert this short term downward trend, but nobody knows when or at what temperature. The possibility that they might do it at the same levels as before the El Niño has not been considered seriously, but in my opinion a return to the pause cannot be ruled out.
Javier,
Yes, the 1991-2020 average baseline will be higher than the 1981-2010 thirty year average.
What indeed makes little sense is challenging an obvious and carefully stated truism: given the present (1980-2010) baseline–the first full 3-decade baseline available in the satellite record–the current run of positive monthly anomalies is the longest in that record. And the notion of much “shorter trends” than 30 years is quite frivolous, given the relatively flat spectrum of year-to-year variability over less than multi-decadal periods.
A truism that is devoid of meaning. Given a 30 year average on a warming trend, it is expected that most values before 1995 whether satellite or not correspond to negative anomalies “by design.” Most values after 1995 are expected to be positive anomaly, and that is the case, but given that the pause went from 1998 to 2013 and most of the warming has taken place afterwards, that the longest positive anomaly run is at the end is what should be expected “by design.” Values at the end are the most removed from a centered anomaly towards the positive side, and values at the beginning are the most removed towards the negative side.
Now you will tell us that the longest stretch of negative anomaly in the satellite record took place in the early 80’s.
An observation devoid of meaning. You might as well say that the world has been warming and most will agree with you.
You don’t like short trends that is your problem. Scientists study all short of trends, and if you go to your doctor and tell him that you have lost weight for the past 6 months he won’t tell you to come back in 30 years to see how that is going.
To a mind that carries on at length about the obvious properties of anomalies as if they were deceptive mysteries, that may seem true. But even analytic novices will recognize that as long as only positive anomalies are being registered, the idea of sustained cooling is not in the cards. Meanwhile, to one trained to approach geophysical predictions through formal procedures (e.g., Kalman-Bucy filters), the significance of long runs of anomalies without any zero-crossings is unmistakably clear. In the present case, sustained warming is much more probable than cooling.
Patience, sky, patience… we’re all not going anywhere for a while. Time will tell if temps are up or down or all around. The upcoming solar min will at least tell us something (beyond that is anyone’s guess)…
Well, for some time now, I have looked at the surface temperatures, noting a regular pattern of a steady trend plus a roughly 65 year cyclical phenomenon. That pattern shifted anomalously with the latest El Nino spike:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.7
That ~65 year pattern appears to be coming from the AMO:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900
So, what is buoying the global average temperature metric at this time? It appears to be a blip related to oscillations in the other big ocean:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900
That metric is currently crashing down, having fallen rather precipitously in the last several months. If it becomes the mirror image of its rise, the blip will be erased, and the GAT may resume its pattern.
With a chaotic system, it is always hazardous to place bets. But, I’ve been expecting reversion to the underlying pattern at some point, and will be happy to see it if it comes soon.
Hi Bartemis,
Precisely, scientists study relations and connections between phenomena. They don’t sit to wait until statistics tell them a change of trend is real at the 95% confidence, because long before that it is real at much lower confidence. Statistics don’t make things real or not, they just help us distinguish.
In 2006 Robert Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, was one of the first to report that there was a slowdown in warming. The Telegraph. April 9, 2006. He was made a laughing stock by advocates of the CO2 hypothesis of global warming on statistic grounds. He turned out to be right despite statistics and in February 2014, volume 4 issue 3 of Nature Climate Change was dedicated to the slowdown in global warming.
Same with Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice dynamics is thought to be dominated by global temperatures and the albedo effect feedback by advocates of the CO2 hypothesis, but people started to notice recently that the ice is not melting. A hypothesis links Arctic sea ice mainly to water temperatures with a lower effect by albedo and air temperatures, and thus relates sea ice dynamics with the AMO oscillations. I reported on it a year ago and was heavily criticized by advocates of the CO2 hypothesis on statistic grounds. We will see about that. Statistics are not the arbiter of what is real or not, as some pretend. This year was the perfect setting for them with Arctic sea ice at the lowest maximum ever in March, yet it is going to end with the September average above the past ten years average. Arctic sea ice is not melting, but slightly increasing, despite record high temperatures and record low albedo. Their theory doesn’t allow for this, so it must be wrong, and taking refuge in statistics will only delay progress in understanding, as happened with the Pause.
With the pause in Arctic sea ice melting well established, and North Atlantic sea surface temperatures going down, it is time to go back to global temperatures and analyze their relation to oceanic oscillations, as you do. Over the next years the CO2 hypothesis is going to be put to the real test. If despite the opposition of oceanic oscillations, and the effect of an extended solar minimum, global temperatures still manage to grow at 0.15°C per decade or more, I will start to think that CO2 has taken control of global temperatures. If it slows down to rates of 0.1°C or lower it will be clear that CO2 is just one of many factors affecting temperatures, demonstrating the madness of any policy targeted at controlling climate by reducing CO2.
With a chaotic system, it is always hazardous to place bets.
Bart, when i lived in west palm beach, i would go to the dog track. My formula was to bet on the biggest dog out there to show. So, even in a chaotic system it seems we can at least count on something predictable/expected to happen. It certainly wasn’t hazardous to my wallet at all! (no pain, no pain… ☺)
Javier @ September 7, 2017 at 2:18 am
It is one of my pet peeves, when people use inappropriate statistical models to “prove” to themselves that the data either indicate something they can’t see with their own eyes, or contradict something they clearly can. My word for it is “mathturbation”.
afonzarelli @ September 7, 2017 at 6:24 am
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
– Damon Runyon
It’s always amusing to read lofty statements about what scientists do or not do by someone without any real experience in the subject area and who plainly carries basic misconceptions about the methods involved.
In scientific study of relations and connections between real-world phenomena, there are theoretical expectations ensuing from first principles and then there are empirical findings that confirm or contradict the former. As it turns out, first principles don’t carry us very far in climate studies. In seeking empirical determinations of the relationships between actual time-series, the cross-spectrum–which defines the optimum estimate of the transfer function between input and output–is an essential starting point. Through it comes the recognition that CO2 is simply not a credible driver of GAST variations.
Similarly, In seeking explanations of the recorded GAST variations, their relationship to various oceanic indices is most incisively revealed through the cross-spectral coherence and phase. The AMO turns out to be quite significantly coherent with GAST and is reasonably close in phase at multi-decadal frequencies. The PDO, on the other hand, tends to lead in phase, but is far less coherent.
When it comes to rigorous scientific predictions of GAST, one can formally employ multi-factor LSE predictors employing other variables, or rely upon autoregressive methods operating on the past values of GAST alone. Kalman and Wiener filters are examples of the latter. As long as the signal bandwidth is quite narrow, they can provide very useful predictions over significantly long horizons. In neither case are the predictions tied to regressional trends, as amateurs surmise. It can be readily shown that such trends are not predictors at all, but significantly lag the signal at all but the lowest frequencies.
Indeed, as Bartemis points out, there was a fairly recent disturbance in the GAST record, which deviated strongly from the simple model of secular linear trend plus quasi-periodic multi-decadal oscillation. While he expresses the subjective expectation that GAST will revert to the previous simple behavior, the strong objective effect of this non-stationarity upon the adaptive Kalman prediction during the present decade keeps me from sharing that sanguine view. Until such objective evidence changes, I will eschew the contrary proclamations of ambitious web-gurus.
It is always amusing to watch somebody jump to conclusions without any knowledge of the subject. I happen to be a scientist with decades of experimental work in basic science.
Oceans more often heat the air than the air heats oceans.
Sure, let’s just say that the sun heats the oceans, and the oceans usually set the temperature of the air just above them. When there is strong wind it will cause upwelling, cooling the ocean. Then the colder ocean will cool the air.
The subject area at issue is analysis and prediction of in situ temperature signals, not experimental work in some unspecified basic science. BTW, the simplistic explanation of air/sea temperature relationship and misguided notion of upwelling dynamics you present here wouldn’t pass even an introductory course in oceanography for non-science majors.
1sky1,
I have yet to read something even mildly interesting from you. You are not worth my time, nor I am interested in discussing my qualifications with you.
Then why did you start an entire discussion thread based upon my plain observation of the unusually long current run of positive monthly anomalies?
Forrest, Dr Roy had this to say in february 2013 after a temperature spike in january of that year (the spike is easy to see in the temperature graph):
The most common cause of such warm spikes (when there is no El Nino to blame) is a temporary increase in convective heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.
and…
The anomalous tropospheric warmth was the result of a temporary increase in convective heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere, as evidenced by cooling SSTs, and well-above average precipitation.
There were two events that happened in August that don’t seem to appear on the Anamoly map. Harvey and the eclipse. You would thing that the eclipse should have lowered the monthly average a streak of the us….and have should have affected southeast tx analogies. It was noticeably cooler during the eclipse In San antonio
If global monthly anomalies vary by 0.12 degree, what is the daily variation? Can anyone explain the heat transfer?
There is no global daily variation due to the daily cycle because when it is day on one side of the world it is night on the other. You can however calculate a global variation for any period, including 24 h. This is done mainly by reanalysis databases that are offering weather forecasts every few hours. For example Oz4caster follows one:
Here you can see how August was warmer than July.
You must not notice it getting dark half the day, and temps changing?
I notice changes because I detect local conditions, not global conditions. But the advantages of having 70% oceans, a strong geomagnetic field, and an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, is that the changes are reduced to a minimum.
3rd highest August since 1979
It took Hansen and the IPCC luminaries only ten years of data to declare human (mainly) CO2 emissions as the overwhelming post-WW2 climate driver — was beyond doubt and settled science™.
For the past twenty years, despite ever-increasing human emissions and concomitant CO2 rise, there has been no rise in the temperature of the global atmosphere:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1997/plot/uah6/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend/normalise/offset:0.5
To be exact, it is 0.07 °C in twenty years, which is about one third of a degree C per century.
That’s in ‘angels and pinheads’ territory IMO.
The trend in UAH 6 over the last twenty years is 0.07 C per decade. This is 0.7C per century, twice what you are claiming.
But the trend over the entire satellite era is 0.125 C per decade, or 1.25 C over a century.
All other data sets show more warming, around an extra half a degree per century.
In this case I suspect it came from El Nino. Not an official El Nino which requires 5 about months of continual El Nino conditions, but still several months of these El Nino conditions. The equatorial Pacific had temperatures about .5 C above average. This energy is probably what is now causing this small increase in satellite measurements.
Those El Nino conditions have now ended so the effect should go away soon.
What a pantfull of shite! This August has been incredibly cool this year. Noticeably so, throughout New England and most of the middle of the country also. Nice to see them start the graph in 1978, at the end of the cooling period (and during the ice age scare of that time). What a bunch of dick bags. Seriously.
anomalies？
when are they going to publish real temperatures？？
Still no tropical hotspot. Tropics are “normal”? This does not follow CAGW dogma. The past is going to have to change quite a bit to make this right. 🙂
It would be really interesting to know if the guys who believe in anthropogenic climate change, receive any funds from companies who produce wind turbines and solar panels. I mean they are pretty good salesmen. Or are they already shareholders trying to improve their companies wealth in order to get more money?
You know, the more I look into the temperature data sets, the more I sympathize with the anonymous DBA who was trying to make sense of the HADCrut data, and whose moanings were revealed in the Climategate tapes.
I went to NOAA to look for the stations used in the official data set, and downloaded the tarballed daily files with the *.dly extension. According to the notes, the GSN stations were supposed to be the high-quality stations with long records and good data. Then I found one that was nothing but precipitation data, and others whose data cuts off years ago.
I tried again with the GISTEMP file v3_mean_GISS_homogenized.txt, which was supposed to be the set of stations used in the most recent July numbers, and in that data set I found several dozen stations whose data ends back in the ’80s, or has a 40-year gap between 1960 and 2000.
These are the high-quality, long-term records used to get the global anomaly? I’ve been working with databases and data mining for over 20 years, and these are the worst data sets with which I’ve had the misfortune to work. Flat files galore, yahoo.
Is it too much to ask to just get a list of the stations and data ACTUALLY USED in generating these data sets. Why are these ancient stations that haven’t provided data in 30 years still on the list of stations in use?
RSS 4 has August at 0.71 C, making it the warmest August on record.
RSS 3.3 has August as the 2nd warmest, with only August 1998 being warmer.