UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2011: +0.29 deg. C

October 4th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for September, 2011 retreated a little again, to +0.29 deg. C (click on the image for the full-size version):

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 this year’s monthly stats:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229
2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043
2011 6 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 7 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204
2011 8 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155
2011 9 +0.289 +0.309 +0.270 +0.175

The global sea surface temperatures from AMSR-E through the end of AMSR-E’s useful life (October 3, 2011) are shown next. The trend line is, again, for entertainment purposes only:

On the subject of the drop-off in temperatures seen in the AMSR-E data in the last week, I have been getting questions about the daily AMSU tracking data at the Discover website which shows Aqua AMSU channel 5 (which our monthly updates are computed from) is now entering record-low territory (for the date, anyway, and only since the Aqua record began in 2002). While I have always cautioned people against reading too much into week-to-week changes in global average temperature, this could portend a more significant drop in the next (October) temperature update, as the new La Nina approaches.


20 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2011: +0.29 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. salvatore del prete says:
    September 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
    MR. ROBERT FELIX, if you read this I am with you on the climate situation. I think the ROOT cause of climatic change is the given strength or lack of strength of magnetic fields, generated by the sun and the earth, and modulated by the moon.
    The magnetic fields when weak give rise to persistence in weather systems ,and a slowness to their movement, which in turn, leads to more extreme climatic events.
    Let me say it like this. I think the sun sets the tables for the various items that control the climate to phase into either a warm mode(active sun) or a cold mode (inactive sun)
    ITEMS THAT CONTROL THE CLIMATE:
    SOLAR
    VOLCANIC
    ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATIONS AO/AAO/NAO
    SOI INDEX LA NINA+ EL NINO-
    PDO/AMO
    COSMIC RAYS
    MAGNETIC FIELDS AS MENTIONED ABOVE
    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES IN THE BIG PICTURE
    Now Robert, I feel all those items in turn will influence the following :
    OCEAN HEAT CONTENT
    CLOUDS
    SNOW COVER
    PRECIPITATION
    ALBEDO
    Now if the degree of magnitude is LONG enough in DURATION, and STRONG enough in INTENSITY,of those items I mentioned with the sun setting the tables, I feel certain THRESHOLDS could be met, which could from time to time bring about abrupt climatic change.
    I say if the sun can remain in this PROLONG SOLAR MINIMUM , all the factors I mentioned above will keep phasing into an ever increasing colder mode.
    I say if the solar flux reading can average 90 or lower ,with spurts from time to time ,(which will promote more geological activity) that this decade will continue to be the one of climatic extremes, and high geological activity, along with a decline in temperatures.
    Climatic extremes and geological activity ,reacting much faster to the prolong solar minimum, then the temperature decline, due to the fact OCEAN HEAT CONTENT , is slow to change, and this keeps the temperatures from reacting as fast as they would otherwise, to the PROLONG SOLAR MINIMUM.
    I say in closing in order to put an end to this hoax which is of course the man made global warming CO2 induced stupidity , we need the prolong solar minimum to continue.
    Past history suggest that when the sun was in a similar position, in respect to the solar system, as it is now, that each time a prolong solar minimum of various degrees of duration and magnitude did come about. Based on past history, I am confident that this time will be no different.
    Thanks for this great website ,and all the great work you have done in this field.

  2. And this theory I have shown, has to be compared to the CO2 HOAX THEORY. They are not even in the same league.

    This theory will be PROVEN to be the correct theory.

    Even if solar activity were to increase ,data will then show a lesser -AO, less geological activity ,since these two items have the shortest response times to changes in solar activity. Ocean Heat Content, causing a big delay, in temperature response.

    Of course if things go the way of the above , no one will pay any attention, since it would be a dull non exciting outlook, although correct.

    However ,I still think the prolong solar minimum is still intact, and this is just a spurt of activity within the prolong solar minimum. Also there is a chance that solar cycle 24 max, could happen sooner, rather then later,time will tell.

    My magic number for cooling due to solar activity setting the tables is a solar flux reading of 90 or lower. Anything above that ,is to high in my opinion. That number is needed to prove this theory CORRECT ,or NOT CORRECT.

    This is no different then the global warmers saying what kind of CO2 concentration they need going forward, in order for their projections to pan out.

    MEANWHILE, WHERE IS ALL THAT GLOBAL WARMING?? ANSWER NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.

  3. LA NINA– If I remember correctly, corresponds to a general cooling of temperatures around the 400 millibar level. The recently formed La Nina ,might be influencing the temperatures at these levels, which are now lower then cold year 2008.

    600MB TEMP. SHOWING SIMILAR RESULTS.

    SOI INDEX – is still the main driver of global temperatures up to this date. It trumps everything ,for now.

  4. Remember, the SOI INDEX , is part of the PHASE IN THEORY.

  5. Quo says:

    Please put back the “average” on the discover page (i.e. whatever temperature would have a zero anomaly on the plots you put out).

  6. nofreewind says:

    Salvatore
    1. Did you ever consider maybe starting “your own” blog? Maybe you didn’t notice this is Roy’s blog
    2. Did anyone ever tell you that you are annoying?

  7. Ray says:

    Dr Spencer,
    I notice that you have continued to display the 3rd order polynomial trend on the UAH graph, for “entertainment” purposes.
    Last month I asked why you had chosen to use the 3rd order polynomial, rather than a simple linear trend, or for that matter a 2nd order or 4th order polynomial trend, but I don’t think that I ever received a reply.
    I also notice that in the case of the AMSR-E Global SST graph, you use a linear trend, rather than the 3rd order polynomial.
    I appreciate that these are for “entertainment” purposes only, but I would still be grateful to know the reason for the choice of these particular trends on these graphs and why not use the same trend on both graphs?

  8. NO FREE WIND this is a site dedicated to climate. No one is making you read my opinions ,so just don’t read them if you don’t like them. Very easy to do.

    Why in the world would someone not want to read an opinion that is well thought out? That I don’t understand. Further my theory at least addresses how the many past abrupt climatic changes might have taken place on earth in the past.

    How this could be annoying to someone interested in climate is beyond me. Maybe you are in the CO2 camp.

    FREE WIND -why don’t you give us your opinion on why the climate changes? Why don’t you give us an explanation for the many abrupt climatic changes that have taken place on earth in the past? Why don’t you say something of value?

    Many people are of the same mind as me, not so much on this particular site however.

    This site I must say is more focused about trying to show how wrong the models are.

    I am trying to give it some balance, by trying to address the climate issue in a more direct manner.

    I already know the models are wrong, I need no further proof. Everything they have forecasted has been wrong. Just go to the ICECAP.COM website for a list of the 30 + blunders the models have made.

    ADIOS

  9. I just have to say I want to know one way or the other right or wrong on what makes earth’s climate change ,and sometimes in a abrupt way.(MANY TIMES,NOT JUST ONCE OR TWICE) So far I have yet to hear an alternative good explanation. I am still waiting.

  10. Luke Skywarmer says:

    No Mr. Del Prete, this website is about the personal research and climate science of Dr. Roy Spencer. People come here to be informed by a real scientist with worthwhile opinions. Only someone as impervious as yourself would mistake it for a platform upon which to hoist their your own personal, nebulous, in-substantiate theories. Your determined ‘aspy’ like disregard for politeness and manners is breathtaking to behold. Is this a problem in your personal life? Do you find it difficult to sustain friendships? Do people ‘glaze over’ and move on regularly from your presence?
    Personally, I can no longer tolerate your cap lock tirades, for God sake, take Free Wind’s advice and go blow hard on your own blog, I implore you! Free yourself to write to your heart’s content in uppercase, boldface, 72 point, sans-serif, Impact typeface, in an endlessly iterating self justification for your appreciative audience… of one.
    Goodbye.

  11. Cristoph Schulz says:

    Luke,

    Impervious is the perfect word for Salvatore.
    Impervious to logic, facts, criticism, sarcasm, satire,
    and fatigue. I too wish he would get his own blog
    and stop posting the same dribble here month in
    and month out.

    A few months back there was some discussion about
    why Roy Spencer makes no effort to respond or rebut
    the more obvious rubbish in the comments, but he
    never responded. Maybe Salvatore is Roy?

    C

  12. Bob Droege says:

    Roy,

    Will you keep the 3rd order polynomial on for entertainment purposes when it flips?

    By flips, I mean when the data causes it to change from diverging to -infinity with time to + infinity with time.

  13. steve says:

    Dr Roy doesn’t respond because if he did he would spend all his time responding to internet cranks. He would have no time to do research.

  14. Luke Skywarmer , my thoughts are very well thought out, based on many, many hours of personal research and real climate science. Past history playing a big role in the formulation of my opinions,unlike the CO2 THEORY,( and I am being kind to call it a theory), which is based on BS.

    The CO2 man induced global warming theory is a disgrace to climate science, and will meet it’s ending this decade.

    I have past history to substanciate much of what I say,in contrast to the CO2 theory which acts as if the recent global warming (which ended around 2002) was a first time ,one time event that has never ever happened before ,when the reality is, last century’s temperature change was among the most stable of temperature changes, for that length of time, throughout earth history.

    That is what the DATA shows, which you don’t believe apparently.

    I can’t waste to much of my time arguing the merits of what I say ,and how you feel, becasue it DOES NOT MATTER.

    What matters is what the temperatures will be doing for the rest of this decade, contrasted with the solar activity.

    As I have said many times ,if the solar flux reading were to stay 90 or less ,and the temperature response was not down ,I would admit to being WRONG. In contrast, the global warmers can never be wrong and they will change the story as many times as is possible ,to see that this is so.

    ATTENTION

    A story just came out (another lie from the global warmers)that show the IPCC type of climate models actually show aerosol increases, INCREASING THE WARMING TREND. Now that is some big news, especially given the fact recent stories have been coming out ,that have been indicating one EXCUSE the global warmers are giving for the lack of recent warming ,is an INCREASE in AEROSOLS.

    Another article just came out that shows beyond a doubt that the MEDIEVAL PERIOD ,was much warmer then today. Source of these stories is CLIMATEDEPOT.COM WEBSITE.

    ANOTHER LIE, AMONG THE MANY TO PROP UP THE SONN TO BE OBSOLETE MAN MADE CO2 THEORY.

  15. It is funny how the ones that are so critical, never offer any counter arguments to a given theory, or never try to point out why it may be wrong.

    In contrast I have pointed out time and time again, why the CO2 global man made theory is wrong, and have substanciated it,with data,and the wrong model predictions.

    Tell me why the PHASE IN THEORY ,with the sun setting the tables is wrong. I am waiting.

    Even DR.SPENCER, agrees with many parts of the phase in theory. It only stands to reason that if the items that control the climate ,phase in a particular direction, they must have an impact on the climate. No one questions the items I have listed as NOT having an impact on the climate, so my logic has to be on sound ground.

    If not this, what has caused the climate to change? Come on ,let’s hear some alternative answers.

    Maybe it was an ASTEROID, or the oceans absorbing tons of freash water, that changed their circulations. More BS one time event theories ,as far as I am concerned.

    I know ,all the volcanos erupted at the same time,releasing tons of co2 /methane, into the atmosphere, that must be it.

    NO ,the best theory, is the phase in theory

  16. Dallas says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I have been looking into the Kimoto equation recently in the blog news.

    for surface temperature and flux

    dF/dT=d(Fc+Fe+Fr)/T=4((Fc+Fe+Fr)/T, Where
    Fc= conductive flux, Fe=evapotranspiration Flux and Fr=radiative flux, all from the surface.

    I was not able to access all the text, but the equation would require heat flux coefficients, 4(aFc+bFe+eFr)/T

    a, would be proportional to the surface and air temperature difference and pressures, c would be proportional to relative humidity and temperature differential, and e would be the effective emissivity of the atmosphere looking up from the surface.

    The value I have for e is 0.825 based on 3.3Wm-2 producing 1K change. 3.3/4=0.825. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate a proper definition and derivation of the value e.

    The Kimoto equation which is based on the linear derivation of the Stepan-Boltzmann Equation, appears to be very elegant and functional with the value of 0.825 for e. It is waste though, without a proper treatment to prove its validity.

    Would you by chance have a link to a proper paper that references the value e which is not behind a paywall? Since this must be a common value in remote sensing, It would also be helpful to know the altitude where the average value of e would decrease to ~0.71. That should be in the range of the 600mb region, if my calculation are correct.

    That you.

  17. P. Solar says:

    salvatore del prete:

    you seems have monopolised this thread as you do with almost every other thread on Dr Spencer’s blog. You don’t even make a veiled attempt to make your SCREAMING personal theory relate to the content of Dr Spencer’s posts.

    Not only is that disrespectful in the extreme, it is diminishing the usefulness and interest of this otherwise knowledgeable and informative site.

    Go sign up at WordPress.com , start your own blog and post a quick note here to let us all know where we can follow your work.

    THEN BUTT OUT.

    Thank you for your comprehension.

  18. P. Solar says:

    Cristoph Schulz says: “Maybe Salvatore is Roy?”

    Dang, I never even thought of that. Brilliant! That explains the inexplicable: why Roy has not banned Salvatore. It’s his schizophrenic alter-ego.

    It’s just like a climate science rewrite of Fight Club all mixed in with In the Name of the Rose.

    How cool is that?

  19. Patrick says:

    Over at Climate Etc. there is a very intereting, high powered discussion of control theory as applied to climate. I would be interested to learn of Roy’s response given that it includes some criticism of both SB11 and Dessler’s papers.