UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2012: +0.28 deg. C

August 2nd, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for July (+0.28 °C) was down from June 2012 (+0.37 °C). Click on the image for the full-size version:

Here are the monthly stats:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 01 -0.01 -0.06 +0.04 -0.37
2011 02 -0.02 -0.04 +0.00 -0.35
2011 03 -0.10 -0.07 -0.13 -0.34
2011 04 +0.12 +0.20 +0.04 -0.23
2011 05 +0.13 +0.15 +0.12 -0.04
2011 06 +0.32 +0.38 +0.25 +0.23
2011 07 +0.37 +0.34 +0.40 +0.20
2011 08 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.16
2011 09 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.18
2011 10 +0.12 +0.17 +0.06 -0.05
2011 11 +0.12 +0.08 +0.17 +0.02
2011 12 +0.13 +0.20 +0.06 +0.04
2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.14
2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.28
2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.09 -0.11
2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12
2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03
2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14
2012 7 +0.28 +0.44 +0.11 +0.33

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.


69 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2012: +0.28 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. oliv says:

    You forgot to say that the stupid fit (see the virtual cooling at the beginning) is for entertainment purpose only.

    No entertainment anymore ?
    So bad…

    • ben bock says:

      you must be really frustrated seeing no warming for 15 years. the rality doesn’t want to fit agw church prophecy. so bad. sorry for you.

  2. Tim says:

    We have hardly seen any summer this year in the UK, in fact we haven’t had a half decent summer since 2006. I suspect that global cooling will start to accelerate, as the oceans lose heat from the warming period since the 1980′s. Has anybody considered that food won’t grow as quickly?

  3. Buzz Belleville says:

    Looks like the warming continues. And with an el Nino fall expected, and solar irradiance on the upward tock of its cycle, can we expect record warms in global temps in the near future?

    Thanks for your response.

  4. amblin says:

    2006 was an exceptional summer in the UK. If you class 2006 as merely “half-decent” then no wonder you think all summers since aren’t summers.

    We’ll get another blazingly hot summer as soon as we get a summer with low rainfall.

  5. Thanks Dr. Spencer, I have updated this graph in the pages of Observatorio ARVAL.

  6. 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 the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.

    Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

    With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. 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 the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 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 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the GISS anomaly for June at 0.56, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.34 + 0.41 + 0.47 + 0.56 + 0.64 + 0.56)/6 = 0.497. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 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 June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th. 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 0.76. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for June at 0.477, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477)/6 = 0.358. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above 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 June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th. 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 0.738. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

    With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 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 June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. 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 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the RSS anomaly for June at 0.338, the average for the first six months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.074 + 0.333 + 0.233 + 0.338)/6 = 0.133. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. 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 June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 8th. 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 0.97. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    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. My projection for the five sets above is that 2012 will come in from 5th to 10th.

    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 is 0.0018436 per year or 0.18/century up to June. The July value will not change it much. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)

    1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
    2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to June)
    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, 6 months (goes to June)
    6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to June)
    RSS is 187/204 or 91.7% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to June 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:1996.9/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 0.0045 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 7 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

  7. David Appell says:

    ben bock wrote:
    >> you must be really frustrated seeing no warming for 15 years. the rality doesn’t want to fit agw church prophecy. <<

    15 years is too short of a time to say much of anything. The 15-year trend of global UAH LT is 0.06 +/- 0.06 C/decade — uncertainty is the 95% confidence level, without considering autocorrelation. When you consider autocorrelation, the uncertainty is multiplied by a factor of about 2 to 3, which means you can't say much of anything about a short time interval like 15 years. There can also be natural fluctuations of that level in that time frame.

    • ben bock says:

      david, 15 years is long enough to say the climate models predicting skyrocket temperatue rise just because of increasing co2 concentration are a pile of garbage. and that’s what the agw faith is based on. years ago according to their blind faith in flawed models agw fans predicted dr.spencer will quit publishing temperature updates soon because global temperature rises too much. nothing happened. now agw propaganda shamefuly concentrates on weather extremes without any scientific base because there’s nothing left to prove they’re right. is it so hard for you to realize there’s not enough evidence for somewhat strange belief in magical power of negligible concentration increase of some trace gas over global atmosphere?

  8. David Appell says:

    Werner, for all your numbers, they are essentially meaningless, since you don’t give their statistical significance. Over periods like “10 years and 9 months” and even “15 years and 7 months,” there are simply not enough data points to say anything meaningful about the trends — the uncertainties are large, especially when you include autocorrelations.

    Excel is a great tool, but it is no substitute for thinking.

  9. Manfred says:

    Spare us from your kind of thunking then.
    Increasing atmospheric [CO2]. Trends that don’t follow models. No significant temperature rise. Wrong thunked amplification. Unknown sensitivity. And on it goes. Sticking to the thunked mantra and party political line. You’ll thunk yourself to a standstill if you’re not careful.

  10. Each month that passes by ,results in the global warming models in being more and more off in their predicted future temperature trend.

    Then again this should not come as a surprise to anyone, since every basic prediction the models have made from atmospheric circulation patterns to atmospheric temperature profiles ,has been 100% off.

    It is pathetic how this AGW theory still has some life. It is the most asinine theory I have ever seen put forth.

    As I have mentioned many times, this decade, will put an end to this ,once and for all, as the prolong solar minimum exerts more and more influence on earth’s climatic system through direct and secondary effects.

  11. David Appell, will follow the AGW theory to it’s grave ,where it is heading ever so fast.

    It is that blind leading the blind.

    We could have an ICE AGE, and I am sure people like Dave, would still support the AGW theory.

    The temperature trends show clearly over the past 15 years, not to mention the 1930′s the hottest decade over the past 150 years ,that the increase in CO2 /positive feedback/increase in temperatures, is NOT,does NOT and will NOT be happening.

  12. I say wait until the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes on by,and see what will be taken place. Solar cycle 24 max. is the weakest since solar cycle 5. Still due to the weak max ,solar activity is a little to high right now,to have a further solar /climate cause and effect,from this current point.

    Nevertheless in the big picture since 2005, the solar /climate connection is building, as solar activity continues to be the weakest since the Dalton Minimum. Once solar cycle 24 max passes on by ,then the solar climate connection will strengthen once again from this point in time,through direct and secondary solar effects. This time will be greater, then the time period just before solar cycle 24 max, due to the overall build up ,that has taken place since Oct. 2005.

    That being an increase in Cosmic Rays, a decrease in EUV light , and lower solar irradiance,since 2005 through present. As these conditons continue to build through the prolong solar minimum they will in turn exert a greater influence on earth’s climatic system, through direct and secondary effects.

    • amblin says:

      UAH temperatures in the past 4 months during low solar activity and ENSO neutral conditions are comparable to the El Nino+solar maximum period of 2002-2005.

      Looks like something is having a bigger warming effect than the Sun is having a cooling effect.

  13. PaulC says:

    Oliv wrote “You forgot to say that the stupid fit (see the virtual cooling at the beginning) is for entertainment purpose only. No entertainment anymore ? ”

    Wow, You must be hell to live with. You criticize when he includes the statement, and then when he doesn’t. If reading Dr. Spencer’s blog makes you so unhappy and disagreeable, why bother? Go find a differnt hobby.

  14. David Appell says:

    ben bock writes:
    >> david, 15 years is long enough to say the climate models predicting skyrocket temperatue rise just because of increasing co2 concentration are a pile of garbage <<

    Statistics says it is not — there is just too uncertainty about what the real trend is over a 15-year period. Sorry, but that's the math.

    • ben bock says:

      dear david,

      again, there’s nothing left for you to believe than obviously flawed toy climate models getting more and more far away from reality. don’t tell me about maths. your priests never used it. grow up and try to use brain cells for thinking. peace, ben.

  15. David Appell says:

    Salvatore, I think it’s you who is blind to what’s going on.

    15 years is too short of a time interval to say anything about the trend with enough certainty. Work out the statistics for yourself.

    Your claim that “the 1930’s the hottest decade over the past 150 years” is not true. I presume you are talking about the continental US (which is only 2% of the globe). According to NOAA’s surface data, the hottest 10-year period between Jan 1895 and present was Dec1997-Nov2007: 1.00 F warmer than any 10-year period in the 1930s. There are uncertainties to that number, too (but less than in the calculation of a trend).
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt

    You seem willing to toss around any numbers and conjectures, without really looking if they’re true or what they say. I’m not willing to do that.

  16. Doug MacIVER says:

    let’s try throwing out the highs and the lows as aborations what’s the average look like then, just a dumb question but some systems use this in other areas.

  17. David Appell says:

    Why would you throw out the highs and lows — is there something suspect about those data points, different from the other data points?

    The real question is, what can you conclude from a time series, and with what statistical certainty. If 15 years is sufficient to conclude something, I’d really like to know, because looking at the mathematics it seems to me the variance of the of the trend estimate is relatively large over such a time interval, when you properly account for basic statistical uncertainty and for autocorrelations. Not to mention that there are natural fluctuations, especially ENSOs, that can cause ~0.2-0.3 C of warming or cooling over such an interval, swamping or exaggerating any underlying AGW signal.

  18. Stephen Wilde says:

    “swamping or exaggerating any underlying AGW signal.”

    Or accounting for all observed changes without any significant contribution from AGW :)

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    “15 years is too short of a time interval to say anything about the trend with enough certainty.”

    How long was the trend that was used to support AGW theory ?

    The late 20th century warming spell didn’t get under way until the 80s and it peaked in 1998.

  20. Dave says:

    Thanks for the update, Dr. Spencer. It looks like, although the global temperature dropped slightly, the tropics are really starting to warm up with the developing El Nino.

    I’m wondering where this July will rank in the U.S. The Vortex site has yet to be updated. Seemed like a very hot July here in the States. Last July was +0.87C in the U.S., and I’m guessing this one will be a little hotter yet.

  21. chris brandow says:

    looking at the 5 year averages of temperature anomolies that end in the listed date, it certainly looks like a trend.

    2012 0.171333333
    2007 0.188
    2002 0.121333333
    1997 -0.123
    1992 -0.058666667
    1987 -0.211333333

  22. “David Appell says:
    August 2, 2012 at 6:21 PM
    and even “15 years and 7 months,” there are simply not enough data points to say anything meaningful about the trends”

    How do you feel about Santer’s 17 years?

  23. David Appell says:

    ben bock wrote:
    >> again, there’s nothing left for you to believe than obviously flawed toy climate models getting more and more far away from reality. don’t tell me about maths. your priests never used it. grow up and try to use brain cells for thinking. peace, ben. <<

    Then you tell me what the 15-year trend is, and the variance of the trend, and its statistical significance, both with and without autocorrelations.

    Give me actual numbers, and indicate the equations or cite the paper you're using to calculate them. Enough so that anyone can reproduce your numbers.

  24. David Appell says:

    Stephen Wilde wrote:
    >> How long was the trend that was used to support AGW theory ? <> The late 20th century warming spell didn’t get under way until the 80s and it peaked in 1998. <<

    According to what did it end in 1998?

    GISS says the 12 months ending in May 2010 had a higher average surface temperature than the 12 months ending in August 1998: 0.67 C to 0.61 C, each with a 2-sigma uncertainty estimated to be 0.05 C. So it's not clear that 2010 was warmer, but it's also not clear than 1998 was warmer.

    Do you have other data?

  25. David Appell says:

    Werner Brozek wrote:
    >> How do you feel about Santer’s 17 years? <<

    What do you mean, how do I feel about it? It's another result to consider in the whole mix of results and data. Is 17 years the last and final truth about time intervals? How would I know? How would you know? It was done by scientists of good reputation and published in a peer reviewed journal. I don't know of any work that disputes it, but I hardly know about all work that has been done or all papers that have been published. There isn't a crash of lightning and thunder that announces some particular result is a fundamental truth of the universe.

    As time goes on and more data is collected, some hypotheses look stronger and some look weaker. The linear trend of the entire UAH global LT time series is 0.14 +/- 0.02 C/decade (95% confidence limit, autocorrelation not accounted for). That trend hasn't changed for about 10 years now, though of course the uncertainty is getting a little smaller as time goes by. What I hear most scientists saying is that such a trend can't be explained by any known natural factors, but it can be explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

    • JJ says:

      David Appell says:

      “What do you mean, how do I feel about it?”

      Pretty obviously, the question was directed as to your bias in appealing to complex statistical concerns when they appear to support your position, and ignoring them when they are inconvenient to same. Equally obvious from your answer is the existence and perniciousness of that bias.

      “It’s another result to consider in the whole mix of results and data. Is 17 years the last and final truth about time intervals?”

      Come now David. A dozen times on this thread, you parrot the notion that 15 years of data is entirely inadequate for saying anything substantive about temp trends, and gosh isn’t the OP a stupid moron for not understanding that. But when asked about 17 years, you are suddenly ignorant of any potential difficulties with uncertainty (esp due to serial correlation), and gosh isn’t Ben Santer a peer reviewed genius.

      “As time goes on and more data is collected, some hypotheses look stronger and some look weaker. The linear trend of the entire UAH global LT time series is 0.14 +/- 0.02 C/decade (95% confidence limit, autocorrelation not accounted for).”

      0.14 +/- 0.02 C/decade? With serial correlation not accounted for? Let alone the effects of 0.2-0.3 C ENSO swings and whatever else you appeal to when you feel you need to? In other words, over thirty plus years you cannot demonstrate a statistically significant trend with a magnitude that has any practical significance? What are we supposed to be worried about again? 0.14C per decade that you cannot differentiate from the current 15 year 0.06C per decade trend that you decry as completely useless as it cannot be differentiated from something less than 0.0? You may want to compare that assessment against the scary stories your peer reviewed scientists with the good reputations are telling.

      “That trend hasn’t changed for about 10 years now, though of course the uncertainty is getting a little smaller as time goes by.”

      Is it? You do understand that increasing N increases the negative effects of serial correlation on trend detection, don’t you? Adding data does not decrease the uncertainty due to serial correlation, it drives that uncertainty thru the roof. And according to you, ‘that trend’ has not been assessed for the uncertainty attendant to serial correlation. Yet you are certain that uncertainty is getting smaller. That is certainly interesting.

      “What I hear most scientists saying is that such a trend can’t be explained by any known natural factors, but it can be explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect.”

      Have you thgouht about the fact that the “enhanced greenhouse effect” those scientists are appealing to is much larger than ‘such a trend’? That in fact the “enhanced greenhouse effect” that they say is the only possible explanation for ‘such a trend’ is more different from ‘such a trend’ than ‘such a trend’ is from 0?

      Of course you haven’t. Thus Werner’s question. And why that question asked what you ‘felt’ about it, rather than what you ‘thought’ about it.

  26. Mario Lento says:

    @Buzz Belleville says:
    August 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM
    Looks like the warming continues. And with an el Nino fall expected, and solar irradiance on the upward tock of its cycle, can we expect record warms in global temps in the near future?

    We are pretty much at the peak of sc #24… which will last a couple more years. This was 1/2 the last cycle #23. After this smallest peak in 100 years, the stored heat may continue to be used up keeping us rather warm. Some are betting that the next cycle #25 will be smaller yet. Many predict a gradual cooling to continue for decades.

    Please comment on this line of reasoning.

  27. Mario Lento says:

    I put more stock in satellite temps than ground temps, which are unreliable.

  28. “David Appell says:
    August 3, 2012 at 7:53 PM
    GISS says the 12 months ending in May 2010 had a higher average surface temperature than the 12 months ending in August 1998: 0.67 C to 0.61 C
    Do you have other data?”

    As we are aware, Hadcrut4 has replaced 1998 as the hottest year with 2005 and 2010 being warmer. The average anomalies for these three years are as follows according to the woodfortrees numbers: 0.523, 0.535 and 0.5375 respectively. However when one digs a bit deeper, an interesting fact emerges. The hottest consecutive 12 month period is still from the previous century. The hottest 12 month period around 1998 is from September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998. Here, the anomaly according to Hadcrut4 is 0.5675. 2005 is not changed by adding or subtracting months. However for the period around 2010, the hottest 12 month period is from August 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010. And for this period, the average anomaly is 0.565, which is 0.0025 below the 1998 value. Of course I am not going to suggest any significance to this, just like there is no significance to 2010 being 0.0145 warmer than 1998 with the error bar being about 0.1. But it is something to keep in mind in case someone comments that 2010 was the warmest year due to the “fluke” of how our calendar is constructed.

    You can also see it here that 1998 was warmer by a line width:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12

  29. “David Appell says:
    August 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM
    Is 17 years the last and final truth about time intervals? How would I know? How would you know?”

    Good questions. Here is my view:
    I am sure you are aware of the ‘travesty’ comment by Trenberth. My interpretation is that privately, they were shocked to see a period of 10 years with no warming. But when that actually happened. they said it appeared in 1 out of 8 model runs. Fair enough. I will accept that. However I also read that no model runs showed 15 years of no warming. Now that three of the data sets show over 15 years of no warming, Santer says we need 17 years for something or other. I am not sure if he is implying that 17 years of no warming means that CAGW is false. But if that happened, I would not be surprised if the goal posts get shifted again.
    So what am I trying to prove? We are beyond Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ in terms of time of no warming and are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. With 15 years and 7 months on RSS, we are 92% of the way there.
    If we did get to 17 years of no warming, I would NOT say that there wasn’t any global warming trend, but I WOULD say the warming is NOT at catastrophic rates, implying there is nothing we need to do about it.

  30. Mario Lento says:

    David Appell: Yes – 15 years is too short to predict a long term trend. That is what sceptics like me say. But you forget or do not want to concede, that the AGW propaganda uses short term periods to try to prove correlation with CO2 as being the cause or driver of climate. You do understand that without using short term trends, the theory of AGW can’t even be made at all. 30 years of warming then 30 years of slight cooling and then another 30 years of warming happened right up to 1998. Conveniently, the last 30 years of warming was considered impeccable proof by your ilk.

    Given what I just wrote here, can you understand that CO2 is continuing to rise and yet again, there is NO correlation within these short time periods with CO2? This period from 1998 on to today was expected simply by understanding the AMO cycles which seem to predictable. What is not as predictable is what the magnitude of the solar cycles will be. Right now, it seems credible that the solar cycle magnitude is headed down… and many expect this to drive climate as it seemingly has been doing with good correlation.

    What we do not know if exactly why solar cycles along with AMO seem to drive climate. Observation shows that they do with about 90% certainty.

    There are credible explanations of why solar irradiance drives climate more than just the slight changes in heat energy that correlate with the sun’s output. They may or may not be true… but that does not change the fact that as the solar irradiance changes, the climate seems to follow.

    Saying anything about CO2 driving climate is nothing more than a theory which is NOT supported by observations over any time periods.

    If you can show us some proof based in observations then speak up. Otherwise, your sarcastic rants are less than elementary argument.

    I approve this message.

  31. Manfred says:

    nn

  32. Manfred says:

    What explanations are offered for the Mayan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period and the 50% of the Holocene warmer than the present day? CAGW theory obviously isn’t a player. CO2 lags temperature. So what’s the driver and why isn’t this the driver now?

    • amblin says:

      change in the tilt of the earth has cooled the earth down since the start of the holocene.

      But temperatures now have shot up competing with the warmest parts of the holocene. That must have a different cause…

  33. Dan Pangburn says:

    Average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide are calculated with an accuracy of 88% using the equation shown at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150304748328951 It uses the time-integral of sunspot numbers, appropriately reduced by energy radiated from the planet, as a proxy for energy retained by the planet. This is combined with an effective ocean temperature cycle of about +/- 1/6C to get the accuracy of 88%. The accuracy is increased by about 0.5% by including the influence of carbon dioxide. The equation predicts a decline of about 0.1C per decade.

  34. Mario Lento says:

    Hi Manfred: I enjoyed the thunking explanation. Could you explain what “nn” means or stands for?

  35. Manfred says:

    Thank you kindly Mario. I could give you a ‘clever’ answer, but the truth is that I was struggling with a recalcitrant upload and inadvertently sent some random key strokes. My apologies.

    I sadly can’t own-up to possessing a goat that goes ‘nnn’

  36. Mario Lento says:

    Well: I do greatly appreciate the questions you pose, the answer to which are none that demonstrate proof that CO2 is changing our climate.

    I also love the claims of more extreme weather as a result of AGW. We can all agree that the northern hemisphere is where most of the warming seems to be. The equator is pretty stable. Given that delta T causes most of the weather… one would surmise that a reduction in delta T would lead to less weather extremes. And – I am pretty sure that there is no increased trends over time of increasing extreme hurricane and tornado events.

  37. Manfred says:

    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 61 (2011) 23-30. Significant decline in storminess over southeast Australia since the late 19th century.

    I write to any and all as I can, highlighting the scam the insurance companies run on the crest of this particular CAGW wave of ignorance called extreme weather. At times I receive bland replies from journalists who profess to a lack of knowledge, though this is rare. Usually silence is the norm and on occasion, they resort to rank insult.

    What has happened to the Fourth Estate, one critical barometer of politics and civilised discourse? I no

  38. Manfred says:

    ….apologies….

    I no longer believe that they possess the intellectual or critical faculties to ascertain the facts or ask the useful questions. More damning still, I do not believe that they are interested in the facts. They peddle their vacuous narcissistic opinions in search of ratings and advertising income. In the meantime, the hapless public are squeezed every which way, wrung out and extorted, whether it be in carbon taxes, insurance costs or power prices. It’s sites like this that one repairs to for sanity!

  39. Mario Lento says:

    Like the unions, their power hopefully has seen it’s better days and the tied will turn to some rational altruism again.

    I very much like this site.

    And I too am on a quest to seek the truth based in fact. From the truth, hopefully better decisions can be made. But for now, the media makes much gain from useful idiots…

  40. Mario Lento says:

    oops tide not tied…

  41. “Do you have other data?”

    Hadcrut3, hadsst2, and RSS clearly show a period in 1998 that was warmer than any since then. See the following where a mean of 12 is taken in each case:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1995/mean:12

    (UAH was essentially tied with 1998 at a later time.)

  42. David Appell says:

    Werner, why do you continue to present numbers with no uncertainties.

    You wrote, “Here, the anomaly according to Hadcrut4 is 0.5675.” Do you really think that number is good to 4 significant figures? If so, why? If not, how many is the data good for, and what are the error bars?

    Excel is a great tool, but it is not a substitute for thinking.

  43. David Appell says:

    Mario Lento writes:
    >> 30 years of warming then 30 years of slight cooling and then another 30 years of warming happened right up to 1998. Conveniently, the last 30 years of warming was considered impeccable proof by your ilk. <<

    Can you show me the science that says that CO2 is the only influence on climate, and that surface temperature must increase monotonically if atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing monotonically?

  44. David Appell says:

    Mario Lento writes:
    >> I put more stock in satellite temps than ground temps, which are unreliable. <<

    Why? The lower tropospheric measurements by RSS and UAH sometimes differ significantly.

    RSS was almost always higher than UAH — by the turn of the century it was about 0.15-0.20 C higher. That gap has disappeared and lately UAH has been higher by about 0.00 – 0.05 C.

    So even the satellite calculations have a great deal of variability.

  45. David Appell says:

    Werner, your use of numbers should be criminal. You pick and choose among them, and attribute far more accuracy to results than the data imply. You seem to think that Santer’s “17 years” is set in stone and that because one dataset (RSS) shows no warming for “92%” of 17 years that will invalidate all science when the 17-year bell rings. What about the other datasets? What about accuracies? What are the accuracies of the Santer et al result? You ignore all these difficult questions. There is a lot more to climate science than the tidy numbers on your spreadsheet.

    Trenberth’s “travesty” comment was about the lack of sufficient data to understand what was (and is) happening in the climate system, not (as you seem to imply) that there was no warming. In fact, here is what he put on his Web site:

    Kevin Trenberth: “It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

    Why should I believe your intuition, which does not seem based on any particular reporting or inside information, about what the scientists were thinking? It looks as unreliable as the numbers you casually toss around.

    • John says:

      “because one dataset (RSS) shows no warming for “92%” of 17 years that will invalidate all science when the 17-year bell rings.”

      1998 is still the juiciest cherry of them all in the lower troposphere record.

  46. David Appell says:

    Mario Lento writes:
    >> Saying anything about CO2 driving climate is nothing more than a theory which is NOT supported by observations over any time periods. <> but that does not change the fact that as the solar irradiance changes, the climate seems to follow. <<

    Except average solar irradiance has been essentially unchanged since 1950, and there's been on increase in cosmic rays over that time, yet it's warmed significiantly. Why?

  47. “Do you really think that number is good to 4 significant figures?”
    I did say: “Of course I am not going to suggest any significance to this”
    If I understand the following correctly, there would be a 95% chance that any number is no more than 0.1 C higher or lower:
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
    And furthermore, if I am interpreting things properly, I suppose one could say that there is a 5% chance that 9 years past 1998 had a higher anomaly than1998? Is that correct? If so, I would not be willing to spend a lot of money on the slim chance that warming may be accelerating.

  48. “What about the other datasets? What about accuracies? What are the accuracies of the Santer et al result?”
    Are you suggesting that Santer expected ALL data sets to show something like 0.12 C/decade cooling over 17 years to be at least 95% sure that there has been no increase over 17 years?

    “Trenberth’s “travesty” comment was about the lack of sufficient data to understand what was (and is) happening in the climate system, not (as you seem to imply) that there was no warming.” Fair enough. However Phil Jones was not happy about the lack of warming over a certain period and it seems reasonable that Trenberth would feel likewise, but I could be wrong.
    Here is what Phil Jones said on July 5, 2005:
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
    http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/ClimateGate-The-Smoking-Gun-email
    In the meantime, Hadcrut3 shows over 15 years of no warming. I suppose this means that there is a 50% chance that it has really warmed and a 50% chance that it has really cooled. Right?

  49. harrywr2 says:

    @David Appell,

    “Except average solar irradiance has been essentially unchanged since 1950, and there’s been on increase in cosmic rays over that time, yet it’s warmed significiantly. Why?”

    The question of ‘lag times’ remain quite uncertain and controversial. There are plenty in the ‘alarminsts’ camp who will claim that even if CO2 levels were frozen tomorrow morning at 9 that the earth would continue to warm for significant periods of time’.

  50. Mario Lento says:

    David Appell:

    There are a few things you seem confused about. Slow down.

    1) you wrote:
    Can you show me the science that says that CO2 is the only influence on climate, and that surface temperature must increase monotonically if atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing monotonically?

    No I cannot find anything say is exactly what you wrote. That’s silly. However, the whole argument from the IPCC is that CO2 is the driver of 90% of the warming that occurred since the 70′s. Their explanation uses their models as proof. They say that CO2 drove the initial warming, which caused water vapor and methane (positive feedbacks) to increase. They said without the initial warming caused by CO2, we would not have warmed as much. Again – they conclude that 90% of the warming is due to CO2 as I explained.

    2) you wrote (regarding why I put more stock in satelllites:
    Why? The lower tropospheric measurements by RSS and UAH sometimes differ significantly.

    The ground temperature records can not do a good job covering the earth and measuring average temperature for a host of reasons. The Urban Heat Island Effect, calibration issues, Human error, insufficient coverage. Constant manipulation of data and partisan politics… and further – taking 2 temperatures per day does not tell you anything that is happening in between the two data points.
    Also – I agree with you that taking the temperature to that many decimal points gives the false impression that there is more precision that exists.

    3) you wrote:
    Except average solar irradiance has been essentially unchanged since 1950, and there’s been on increase in cosmic rays over that time, yet it’s warmed significiantly. Why?

    If you re read my original post, it explains perfectly what I believe… along with the uncertainties.

    And again, it’s silly to say that solar irradiance has been virtually unchanged. You should look at NASA’s website before you make such statements.

    I would like to close by saying that it is apparent that many people want to believe in something and then find proof of why they are right. The climate does not care who is right. I keep an open mind and seek the truth as best as I can find it. I have a process control, science and engineering background, so I am not confused by all the technical components of climate science. I am skeptical of people like you who believe in things that causes me and other tax payers to fork out my money for a cause that makes other people rich. Therefore I will seek the truth and you will parrot the work of people who say what you want to be the truth.

  51. Still zero trend when best fit cycle is removed:

    http://naturalclimate.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/uah-global-trend-and-cyclical-analysis-as-of-july-2012-zero-trend/

    Dr Spencer, if you look few posts down on that blog, I still had a question on UHI regarding a post you did at WUWT… Mind taking a look? Thanks.

  52. Kristian says:

    Roy,

    I must ask, what is happening to your trend over the last two or three years? It’s not just going up. It’s almost as if there’s been an upward shift somehow. And I mean this compared to all the other global data sets out there. Yours is becoming more and more the outlier. None of the global surface records are showing anything special going on. HadCRUT is not. NOAA is not. Heck, even GISTEMP is trending flat or even slightly down since 2008/09. Same with global SSTs. As with land temps. No upward trend whatsoever. And certainly no shift.

    RSS is in quite close agreement with all of these, particularly HadCRUT3. UAH isn’t. It seems the divergence between the satellites started already in 2005-06. And it might very well be that UAH was the more accurate (correct) one up until 2010-11, RSS perhaps trending a tad too low. But with the last couple of La Nińa years, UAH seems to have taken off completely. +0,1C in one and a half years?!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/offset:-0.13

    In 2012 you’ve actually almost caught up with GISTEMP to be back to where you were (if aligned), side by side, in the early 80s, having been trailing far below for more than 15 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/offset:0.35/scale:0.8/plot/gistemp/from:1979

    What are your thoughts on this?

    Cheers.

  53. “John says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM
    1998 is still the juiciest cherry of them all in the lower troposphere record.”

    There is a certain amount of truth to that, but I would like to add the following. It is bad for CAGW if the 1998 record is not beaten by 2012 on 4 of the data sets. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. However we do not have to cherry pick the spike in 1998 on RSS to get a flat slope. As a matter of fact, that flat line starts near the middle of a La Nina. Check out the following where the flat slope starts in December 1996: (slope = -0.000153447 per year); but if I really wanted to cherry pick, I would choose the start a year later in December 1997: slope = -0.00526611 per year
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend

    • John says:

      “Check out the following where the flat slope starts in December 1996″

      The juiciest cherry is still close to the beginning.

  54. David Appell says:

    Mario Lento wrote:
    >> However, the whole argument from the IPCC is that CO2 is the driver of 90% of the warming that occurred since the 70’s. <<

    Can you give me a source for the "90%" figure? That's new to me.

  55. David Appell says:

    Mario Lento wrote:
    >> And again, it’s silly to say that solar irradiance has been virtually unchanged. You should look at NASA’s website before you make such statements.<<

    I have looked at the data. Where is the change?

    TSI (annual) – LASP
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

    I find, for 1950 onward, without considering autocorrelations, a linear trend that does not differ statistically from zero:

    0.02 +/- 0.05 (W/m2)/decade

    What number do you find? If it's the same one, what is the basis for using the word "silly" above.

  56. Mario Lento says:

    David Appell:

    Recall that I wrote: “It is apparent that many people want to believe in something and then find proof of why they are right.”

    You are making statements which show that you have not understood simple explanations given.

    Here’s a quote that I originally made and stand by. There is plenty of evidence on the strength of solar cycles.
    “We are pretty much at the peak of sc #24… which will last a couple more years. This was 1/2 [the peak of] the last cycle #23. After this smallest peak in 100 years, the stored heat may continue to be used up keeping us rather warm. Some are betting that the next cycle #25 will be smaller yet. Many predict a gradual cooling to continue for decades.”

    Here’s the other quote “There are credible explanations of why solar irradiance drives climate more than just the slight changes in heat energy that correlate with the sun’s output. They may or may not be true… but that does not change the fact that as the solar irradiance changes, the climate seems to follow.”

    There are other things which in combination with Svenson’s work and the AMO, explain virtually all of the climate change we have been seeing.

  57. David Appell says:

    Mario: Again, what is your basis for saying “it’s silly to say that solar irradiance has been virtually unchanged.”

    I showed you the numbers, and the trend. This is what has actually happened, not conjectures about what might happen in future solar cycles.

    Do you have different numbers, and a different trend? If so, what is it?

  58. “The juiciest cherry is still close to the beginning.”

    On the other hand, the slope is also flat for all practical purposes from 2000. (It turns out to be negative a month later.) See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend