« Previous | Main | Next »

Global temperatures: Up sharply in June.

Paul Hudson | 17:10 UK time, Thursday, 7 July 2011

The latest global temperature has been released and according to the UAH satellite measure June's anomaly was 0.314C above the running 30 year mean, up from +0.133C in May

Adjusted to the more standard time period used by the Met Office and the WMO, the anomaly is now +0.567C above the 1961-1990 average.

All parts of the globe experienced a rise in temperature, and as can be seen below, global temperatures have rebounded sharply in the last 6 months from the minimum at the turn of the year, at least on this satellite measure.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    don't even say it newdwr54 . . .
    . . . well okay then, I suppose it is your turn.

    (mutters under breath, never did trust these bloomin' satellites)

  • Comment number 2.

    or we could ask our host to let us know why people attach so much importance to a menaingless statistic

    my good mate Science of Doom Esq has a lot of interesting stuff on his website - yes I know he is a believer in the AGW story - but his approach is scientific

    see http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 3.

    Still trying to get my head around this.
    Firstly, it might seem that my prediction of about 0.2c based on AQUA CH5 was way off, but actually the figure of 0.314c is just within the range of variation based on past figures. This all proves that using AQUA CH5 isn't a particularly accurate way of estimating UAH.
    There is also a history of a wide divergence of the UAH anomaly adjusted to 1961-90 from the monthly HadCRUT3 figure. For example, the adjusted UAH figure for September 2010 was 0.73c whereas the actual HadCRUT3 figure was only 0.396c. In fact, the adjusted UAH figure often varies considerably from the HadCRUT3 figure and the two only seem to coincide over much longer time-scales, i.e. 100 years!
    The RSS anomaly has also gone up from 0.129c last month to 0.277c, which may sound similar to UAH, but after adjustment to 1961-90, it is only equivalent to 0.424c.
    So the satellite and non-satellite anomalies seem to be diverging again, but the question is, by how much? Like last month, I am of the opinion that this doesn't necessarily point to a big increase in the non-satellite anomalies in June.
    In fact, a further fall in non-satellite anomalies isn't out of the question.
    Bear in mind that the rolling 2011 means for non-satellite anomalies were already above the satellite rolling means at the end of May and even with the June satellite figures, only HadCRUT3 is slightly below the UAH rolling mean.

  • Comment number 4.

    1. lateintheday wrote:

    "don't even say it newdwr54 . . ."

    What? I was just going to say that 'global cooling' has taken another peculiar turn. What's up with that?

    Really though, this places 2011 as 11th warmest Jan-June in the UAH data (joint 10th if you round up to two decimal places, which is where the error bands become marginal).

    Schmidt is grinning like a Cheshire cat... that caught a mouse.

  • Comment number 5.

    3. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    "This all proves that using AQUA CH5 isn't a particularly accurate way of estimating UAH."

    I disagree with you there QV. I tracked Ch 5 quite closely this month and it was showing very high values for June throughout. Only June 2010 was consistently warmer than this June, since 2004 at least (when the ch. 5 data series begins according to the Discovery AMSU site). This is fairly reflected in the final figures.

    The ch 5 July temps are also showing quite high, but just below 2006, 2007 and 2010 at present.

    But it has to be said, and it might as well be me who says it: this is entirely consistent with AGW theory. Following on from the natural cooling event caused by the fast-fading La Nina episode, global temperatures are picking up very rapidly, and in a way that cannot be easily explained by natural climate variation alone.

    If Paul's view that the Met Office anomaly is now +0.567C above the 1961-1990 average (I'm assuming he is referring to HadCRUT3), then June 2011 would be the second warmest June, and Jan-June 2011 temperatures would be the eleventh warmest Jan-June in a data set that spans 162 years.

    This might all be rubbished by the surface data once it's released, but presently there is no cooling signal of any kind in any of this data; in fact the signal is one of continued warming as far as I can see.

  • Comment number 6.

    The figures may not be that accurate, see this on WUWT:
    "Record highs? – NOAA staffers are beginning to doubt the accuracy of the measurement system"

    Interesting to see what happens when one of the sensors is repaired.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/07/record-highs-noaa-staffers-are-beginning-to-doubt-the-measurment-system/

  • Comment number 7.

    #55. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I tracked Ch 5 quite closely this month and it was showing very high values for June throughout."
    Yes, but the final average June CH5 anomaly was +0.159, which based on a linear relationship between ch5 and UAH, only pointed to a UAH figure of 0.214. Even with the data from this June in the formula, it would only equate to 0.231. Maybe the relationship isn't linear, but it looks linear. The problem seems to be that there is too much variation in the relationship to produce a reliable estimate.
    "The ch 5 July temps are also showing quite high, but just below 2006, 2007 and 2010 at present."
    That is true. Based on past years, I would put the current estimate of UAH at 0.267, +/- 0.1, but based on recent experience, more likely to be higher.
    "But it has to be said, and it might as well be me who says it: this is entirely consistent with AGW theory."
    But so far, only based on satellite anomalies, which are running in the opposite direction to terrestrial.
    "If Paul's view that the Met Office anomaly is now +0.567C above the 1961-1990 average (I'm assuming he is referring to HadCRUT3), then June 2011 would be the second warmest June, and Jan-June 2011 temperatures would be the eleventh warmest Jan-June in a data set that spans 162 years."
    That's not actually what he said. He said that UAH adjusted to 1961-90 was equivalent to 0.567c. There is a history of a wide divergence of the adjusted UAH from the actual HadCRUT3. Do not fall into the trap of believing that HadCRUT3 will be anything like 0.567c.
    "This might all be rubbished by the surface data once it's released, but presently there is no cooling signal of any kind in any of this data; in fact the signal is one of continued warming as far as I can see."
    Again, based only on satellite anomalies.
    I have checked the past large rises in UAH anomalies. Of the 42 occasions on which UAH rose over 0.15 in a month, only on 8 occasions did HadCRUT3 increase
    by a similar amount. In fact, on 9 occasions, HadCRUT3 actually fell, so based on past experience, HadCRUT3 is just as likely to fall in July than it is to increase
    in a similar manner to UAH.
    Also, large changes in UAH one month are often followed by large opposite changes the following month, so we may see a corresponding fall in UAH in July, and that is still possible within the margin of error of UAH estimates based on AQUA CH5.

  • Comment number 8.

    #4. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "Really though, this places 2011 as 11th warmest Jan-June in the UAH data (joint 10th if you round up to two decimal places, which is where the error bands become marginal).
    Schmidt is grinning like a Cheshire cat... that caught a mouse. "
    So still only 11th?
    Remember, for Schmidt to be correct it has to be "easily" within the top 10.
    I don't think Schmidt will be smiling at the end of the year.

  • Comment number 9.

    Once again to ensure that our forcasts remain on record I post our predictions made for 2011 at the start of the year


    Met Office +0.44
    SmokingDeepThroat +0.39
    quake +0.36
    ukpahonta +0.35
    Gadgetfriend +0.30
    NeilHamp +0.27
    QuaesoVeritas +0.25 (revised)
    millinia +0.24
    Joe Bastardi +0.2
    Ken Sharples +0.18
    LabMunkey +0.18
    nibor25 +0.15

    Quake and Smokingdeepthroat are still looking good

  • Comment number 10.

    Looking at AMSU temperature Ch5 2011 seems to be following the patterns of 2006 and 2007

    Simply eyeballing Paul's chart above UAH does seem to have resumed a long term warming trend. I have still not given up on the "quiet sun". We need to see the rest of the data up to the end of the decade.

  • Comment number 11.

    Interestingly, Roy Spencer has just posted an article which addresses the issue of the difference between the UAH and RSS anomalies.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
    It appears from this that UAH is definitely warming relative to RSS (or vice versa), over the last 10 years.
    Spencer seems to conclude that it is RSS which is wrong, but jokingly suggests at the end that anyone who wants temperatures to show as little warming as possible, might "jump ship" and switch to using RSS.
    Personally I think this question is too serious for levity and the difference needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
    There may also be a question of the difference between UAH and non-satellite anomalies to be addressed.

  • Comment number 12.

    #9. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "Quake and Smokingdeepthroat are still looking good."
    It is interesting that even if Smokingdeepthroat is correct, that
    will still make 2011 only the 11th warmest year according to HadCRUT3.


  • Comment number 13.

    I see NOAA are starting to have doubts about the accuracy of their equipment taking surface temperature measurements.

  • Comment number 14.

    #6. - oldgifford wrote:
    "The figures may not be that accurate, see this on WUWT:
    "Record highs? – NOAA staffers are beginning to doubt the accuracy of the measurement system""
    I don't think this would have any bearing on the accuracy of UAH figures.



  • Comment number 15.

    Hilarious that WUWT are putting articles out doubting this warm figure, and yet when it's the other way round its celebrated as more evidence of global cooling. You couldn't make it up (although WUWT regularly seem to).

  • Comment number 16.

    15.
    At 09:41 8th Jul 2011, Gadgetfiend wrote:

    . You couldn't make it up (although WUWT regularly seem to).

    What exactly are you alleging they have made up?

  • Comment number 17.

    WUWT spent years on the earth stations survey, spent years on the research, spent years writing a papers that analysed the figures and did the stats and also spent years saying how their evidence would be damning.

    The paper was released, said the warming trends were accurate, and was allowed to slip off the front page within a week. This was the big paper, the big survey, the thing WUWT has had it's core for years and it didn't even deserve a sticky. Why? Because it didn't get the result they thought it would.

  • Comment number 18.

    johncogger . . well that's your take on it but maybe you haven't been reading closely enough. My understanding is that there were two issues that Watts wanted to examine. One was effects on temp records through station siting, and this was studied in the recent paper. I agree, the paper brought little new to the table since the errors tended to cancel themselves out. Despite this, the uncertainty was found to be greater than previously thought. Not sure if or indeed how, that might affect other uncertainties in say the paleo record for example. I would presume that the proxy records must be calibrated in some way to known/measured temps. If the uncertainty is greater now, then one might expect this to increase the grey shaded areas in the LIA or the MWP.
    The second issue was the Stevenson Screens themselves. In particular, how a simple change in painting/upgrading might nudge up the recorded temps. They are still working on this apparently. I don't think anyone is expecting this to be particularly significant in itself either. It may show only in the hundredths column if at all. However, the point that is made most often is how each small adjustment when added together, can lead to an additional tenth of a degree when rounded up. The tenths are significant. Knock a couple of those off the trend and the warming doesn't look so 'unprecedented'.


  • Comment number 19.

    Neil, i'd like to revise my prediction up .6 if i may. time to scrap that lower prediciton.

  • Comment number 20.

    Global warming = the earth is flat. The sun controls the temperature of the world = the earth is round. People who believe in a flat world, will always argue the that is the case and find the evidence to support it. However the wheels are starting to come of their wagon, as more and more people realise that statistics can be made to say what ever they want them to and this is the biggest hoax since Weapons of Mass destruction. Who says the UAH is even a true reflection of the temperature of the earth and there aren't fiddle factors some where down the line. Until we measure the temperature of our sun, versus our orbit around it, we will be no where near the truth. Lets have our industry back and become as efficient as we can. Who wants to pay more tax, for something that isn't even true and damages our industry.

  • Comment number 21.

    'Who wants to pay more tax, for something that isn't even true and damages our industry?'

    Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB, the Green party, most political organisations to the left of the Labour party in fact just take a scroll down Chris Huhnes visitor list for the most well known.

  • Comment number 22.

    ukpahonta. Well said. Only two parties are really against Global warming, UKIP and the BNP. I couldn't vote BNP, but they talk a lot of sense, when it comes to this. Even the Conservatives have a hand in the Global warming myth, ask Nigel Lawson, he came out with it on the TV and wrote a book on it.

  • Comment number 23.

    Roy Spencer seems to be getting more defensive over UAH figures.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/more-on-the-divergence-between-uah-and-rss-global-temperatures/
    This time he has come right out and said that UAH is more accurate than RSS.
    It will be interested to see of anyone from RSS responds to this.

  • Comment number 24.

    7. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

    ".... the final average June CH5 anomaly was +0.159, which based on a linear relationship between ch5 and UAH, only pointed to a UAH figure of 0.214."

    Roy Spencer said that Ch. 5 AQUA was the best 'rough guide' to global surface temperature trends. To be fair to him, I believe he was probably talking in terms of relative temperatures, as opposed to absolute ones.

    If you look at the Ch. 5 data for June from 2004 to present, then in terms of warmest to coolest, it follows exactly the UAH relative surface temperatures for June. Both sets show the following years as warmest - coolest (June):

    2010
    2011
    2005
    2007
    2006
    2004
    2009
    2008

    So Spencer is right to say that Ch. 5 is a fair way to judge one month's data against that of the same month in previous years.

    (Never thought I would post in defence of Roy Spencer!)

  • Comment number 25.

    22. timawells wrote:

    "...ask Nigel Lawson, he came out with it on the TV and wrote a book on it"

    What are Nigel Lawson's scientific credentials?

    Don't bother to check: they are zero.

    Are you interested in Michael Mann's economic beliefs (if he has any)? I'm not.

  • Comment number 26.

    23. QuaesoVeritas:

    I may be an old cynic, but I suspect Spencer's flurry of posts re RSS is really more about pushing the "bad news" of June surface temperatures well down the page.

    Oh, and WUWT is at the same trick.

  • Comment number 27.

    #24. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "If you look at the Ch. 5 data for June from 2004 to present, then in terms of warmest to coolest, it follows exactly the UAH relative surface temperatures for June. Both sets show the following years as warmest - coolest (June):

    So Spencer is right to say that Ch. 5 is a fair way to judge one month's data against that of the same month in previous years."
    I don't disagree with you . As I said, there is a linear relationship between AQUA CH5 and UAH, i.e. the higher CH5, the higher UAH.
    If you plot the temperatures in a scatter diagram, and plot a linear trend, you will see what I mean. The problem is, it isn't exact, and individual UAH figures can vary by up to 0.1c from the theoretical figure.


  • Comment number 28.

    #26. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "I may be an old cynic, but I suspect Spencer's flurry of posts re RSS is really more about pushing the "bad news" of June surface temperatures well down the page."
    I think you may be right.


  • Comment number 29.

    A day inside the MO at Exeter, quite a good article for the FT magazine

    So, will it rain tomorrow?
    By Clive Cookson:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/35145bee-9d38-11e0-997d-00144feabdc0.html

    “We now believe that [the solar cycle] accounts for 50 per cent of the variability from year to year,” says Scaife. With solar physicists predicting a long-term reduction in the intensity of the solar cycle – and possibly its complete disappearance for a few decades, as happened during the so-called Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 – this could be an ominous signal for icy winters ahead, despite global warming. "

  • Comment number 30.

    newdwr54,
    I have looked at the difference between the estimated UAH figures, calculated using the linear formula derived from past CH5/UAH figures, and the actual UAH for each month. The difference figures so far this year are:
    JAN +0.024
    FEB +0.061
    MAR +0.017
    APR +0.0.85
    MAY +0.091
    JUN +0.10
    So, the actual AUH has been running above the CH5 calculated figure all year, and
    recently, it has been approaching 0.1c above. This can't be seasonal, since that would be taken into account from previous figures, so there must be something about the relationship between the figures this year.
    What this means is that in order to obtain a reasonable estimate for July, it may be necessary to add at least 0.1 to the theoretical figure. That would make the current UAH estimate for July to 0.384.
    Having said that it will probably all change in July!

  • Comment number 31.

    Sorry, a couple of typo's.
    The figures for April and May should have been:
    APR +0.85
    MAY +0.91

  • Comment number 32.

    Drat!
    No they shouldn't.
    The actual figures should be:
    JAN +0.024
    FEB +0.061
    MAR +0.017
    APR +0.085
    MAY +0.091
    JUN +0.10

  • Comment number 33.

    Labmonkey,
    Is your revised estimate of +0.6 for real?
    I can post both if you like, but I think +0.6 will be as far away as +0.18
    Perhaps a mean of your two estimtes might be closer to the truth
    Neil

  • Comment number 34.

    NeilHamp,
    Possibly we should all have the opportunity to submit revised estimates from the end of June, although we should retain the original estimates for comparison, since the whole point of the excercise was what we thought at the start of the year.

  • Comment number 35.

    Thanks for the reference to the Met Office article UKpahonta
    The illuminating comment about the sun also comes after similar comments about about Ocean currents!
    Is the Met.Office beginning to accept that natural events may after all have something to do with global temperatures?

    Behind the scenes the Met Office has an intensive programme to make its seasonal and other long-range forecasts accurate enough for presentation to the public again in the future. Adrian Scaife, who is in charge of the research, points to several improvements in the pipeline.

    One is to fix a weakness of the current computer model: its poor representation of “blocking highs”. These anticyclones stay almost stationary for weeks on end and so does the weather they generate. Blocking highs over northern Europe, which produce heat and drought in summer and severe cold in winter, have proved particularly troublesome for the British Isles. A “ground-breaking” new model predicts the formation and eventual disintegration of blocking highs much better, Scaife says, “because it has a better representation of the Gulf Stream. It is too expensive [in computer resources] to use routinely now, but we hope to put it into operation in a year or two.”

    A second improvement comes from working out the consequences for the northern hemisphere of the famous oscillation in the tropical Pacific Ocean between warm El Niño and cold La Niña. Although the impact in the southern hemisphere is dramatic, as Australia’s La Niña floods showed earlier this year, the indirect effects on Europe are only now emerging. The latest research shows that El Niño tends to produce high pressure over the polar regions of the north Atlantic and low pressure further south – leading to cold winters in northern Europe.

    Third, scientists at the Met Office and elsewhere are beginning to understand the effect of the 11-year solar cycle on climate. When sunspots and other solar activity are at a minimum, the effect is similar to that of El Niño: more easterly winds and cold winter weather for Britain.

  • Comment number 36.

    #35 NeilHamp

    There has been a noticeable lack of CO2 refferences in recent climate and weather articles in the MSM. With this article I think a circle of light has appeared in the dark of the tunnel.

    My 0.35 stands if you do a mid point adjustment.

  • Comment number 37.

    newdwr54. I wouldn't believe everything a scientist says, as much as I wouldn't believe everything a politician says. Both sets want to make themselves more important than they really are, make things more complicated than they really are, so the lay person hasn't a clue what they are on about. Unless I have the information or can proof something myself, I don't take anybody elses's word on it.

  • Comment number 38.

    We are now half way through the year
    I think some people may wish to revise their HadCRUT3 global anomoly forcast
    I am thinking of a marginal increase
    Please post any REVISED FORCAST's here for me to include next month

  • Comment number 39.

    #36. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "There has been a noticeable lack of CO2 refferences in recent climate and weather articles in the MSM."
    It's probably obvous, but what is the MSM?

  • Comment number 40.

    Sorry, main stream media, newspapers, tv and radio as opposed to blogs and web sites

  • Comment number 41.

    ukpahonta,
    Thanks, it should have been obvious.

  • Comment number 42.

    I have just noticed that the daily sunspot numbers, as published on the "Spaceweather" website always seem to be higher than the official figures.
    It is therefore possible to get a misleading impression of the SSN from that site.
    It doesn't seem to be possible to use those figures to estimate the eventual monthly figure from them. Maybe they are the official figures prior to "revision".
    Does anyone know of a source of the correct daily figures, published on a daily basis?

  • Comment number 43.

  • Comment number 44.

    ukpahonta,
    Thanks, that looks like an interesting page, but I haven't been able to find
    any reference to daily ssn yet.

  • Comment number 45.

    QV try this site.
    www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
    This is the source link for the 'laymans' count which appears half way down the solar reference page that ukpahonta pointed you to. Interestingly, this site attempts to stick to the older Wolf system for SSN which naturally ties in better with historical records. The newer SSN counting methods seem to over count due to the availability of better technology. The criteria for official sunspot qualification is also different in the newer systems.

  • Comment number 46.

    Also, has anyone else tried to follow the Nic Lewis critique of how the IPCC report seemed to re-write the conclusions of Forster and Gregory's climate sensitivity study?
    I've read it a number of times and find it almost unintelligible. I can only approximate what I think they are saying but to give a gist . .
    The F&G paper was based on actual observation of flux at TOA. It was the only non-model based submission on climate sensitivity but the observations were flagged as being of relatively poor quality. In order to make the most of the data, F&G prepared a statistical probability paper which showed a small, but apparent signal for sensitivity in the range of 1.3 - 4.1 or thereabouts. The IPCC report (with the inclusion of F&G as authors) changed the statistical analysis of the data by adding a bayesian technique in the form of a prior assumption. The assumption being that the range of sensitivity could be anywhere between 0 and 18 degrees. This changed the probability density of the original F&G paper, doubling the potential sensitivity that the original paper found. The use of this new prior is being questioned by mathematician Nic Lewis who claims it is unjustified on two accounts. Firstly, the use of a bayesian prior on a uniform analysis. Secondly, the extremely unlikely sensitivity range of 0 - 18 degrees which skews the probability.
    I feel like I'm trying to translate Swahili. Best have a look for yourself through the J Curry site.

  • Comment number 47.

    Well I suppose it depends on the axis scale of your graphs but to me 0.31C rise is not 'sharp' nor is it outside the natural variation of June temperatures. So nothing to shout about.

    Get a life Paul.

  • Comment number 48.

    #46. - lateintheday wrote:
    "Also, has anyone else tried to follow the Nic Lewis critique of how the IPCC report seemed to re-write the conclusions of Forster and Gregory's climate sensitivity study?
    I've read it a number of times and find it almost unintelligible. I can only approximate what I think they are saying but to give a gist . ."
    I must admit, I have tried a couple of times but have given up, partially because I don't really understand it and partially because I am not convinced it is worthwhile making an attempt to understand it. I have myself found bigger basic errors in IPCC figures, which are not as difficult to understand.
    You seem to have a much better understanding than me, but I don't even understand your summarised version.

  • Comment number 49.

    #47. - John Marshall wrote:
    "Get a life Paul."
    Whenever I hear people use that phrase, I am tempted to ask, "one like yours I suppose"? But that might be considered rude.

  • Comment number 50.

    # 46 lateintheday

    there is a summary on Bishop Hill's blog at

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/7/5/ipcc-on-climate-sensitivity.html?currentPage=2

    this is written by Jeremy Harvey and has been approved by Nic Lewis on JC's blog

    and as you are probably aware Nic Lewis has followed up with an open letter to Gabi Hegerl which can be accessed on Judith Curry's blog

    the interesting thing is that it shows how the science always takes a back seat to the dogma in the hands of the IPCC. And the amazing thing is that IPCC is still quoted by our misguided politicians as if it is a scientific body.

    People wake up. The IPCC is a politico-religious body run by zealots. Nullius in verba applies to everything they issue. That's buyer beware to you and me.

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 51.

    30. QuaesoVeritas:

    In purely relative terms, the AQUA Ch. 5 temperatures have shot upwards in the past week. I know it's early days, but at 6 July they had reached joint second warmest and are only a whisker of 2010.

    If UAH reaches 0.384 in July then it would move 2011 inside the top ten warmest on record, at number 9. Perhaps not yet 'easily' inside the top ten, but getting there?

    All speculative of course. Who knows when cooling will strike?

  • Comment number 52.

    45. - lateintheday wrote:
    "QV try this site.
    www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50"
    Thanks, I saw that on the original link but didn't follow it up. Maybe it's because I am not used to the site, but I can't find what I want there either.
    What I am looking for are the daily figures equivalent to the monthly ones which can be downloaded from the NASA website here:
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
    I can't see any reference to them on site, but I did find this site which plots daily figures, although I can't find any way of getting the actual figures:
    http://space-env.esa.int/Data_Plots/noaa/ssn_plot.html
    Unfortunately the "Contact the section" link doesn't work.
    I also noted from the "Layman's count" site that Geoff Sharp expects SC24 to be similar to SC5. I bow to his greater expertise, but personally I think more like SC10 or SC12. The difference is that (by my calculations), SC4 was 14 months longer than SC23, so would be expected to produce lower sunspot numbers.
    There doesn't seem to have been much activity on the Layman's count forum recently.

  • Comment number 53.

    "Who knows when cooling will strike?"
    same time as the Spanish Inquisition?

  • Comment number 54.

    QV says . . "You seem to have a much better understanding than me, but I don't even understand your summarised version."

    Neither do I.
    I think the significance of the story is that the use of the bayesian prior distorted the original findings of F&G which subsequently allowed for alarmist headlines where there were none. It appears that the F&G paper was the ONLY observation based submission to that section of the IPPC report and its original conclusions for climate sensitivity were not alarmist enough. The authors will no doubt respond in due course since they were party to the IPCC re-analysis of their own paper.

  • Comment number 55.

    If Britain still had an industry, we would be making things more efficiently that lasted, without the pollution it is creating in countries like China, India etc. Now there is the added cost to transport things back into the UK and wait for their cost of living increasing. If Margaret Thatcher had done her home work and understood how the real world worked, the country wouldn't be in such a mess now. In the 1980's we should have learnt how to do things more efficiently, rather than damaging whole communities and exporting our dirty work to other countries. We only have ourselves to blame, if Global warming was true, but I think that is a pipe dream by people who have added 2+2 and got 3.

  • Comment number 56.

    timawells,
    Surely you can't still be blaming Maggie Thatcher for the state the country is in?
    Didn't Labour have time to sort things out?
    Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, they adopted Thatcherite policies as well!
    I agree about China however, the current situation is INSANE.
    The trouble is, in a free market economy, for which we owe our current wealth, it is in the interests of individual companies to get China to do their manufacturing.
    Apparently the price of wool has increased recently, to the extent that farmers can make a profit on it again. However, most wool is exported to China and used to make carpets, which are then imported again. I can't believe that is economically viable, but apparently it is, but it definitely can't be environmentally viable.
    I bought a plastic storage container the other day in "Pound Stretcher", which was made in Italy! I nearly died of shock. Did you see the Panorama programme about medical instruments. Most of the world's supply is made in one town in Pakistan, some of it in back street "factories", with little regulation. Because it is made with German steel, they can legally stamp it "Made in Germany". Sometimes they stamp it "Made in Germany" when the steel is made in Pakistan. Only one health authority in the UK actually checks the quality of the instruments they buy, and that one rejects about 10% because they are dangerous to use. The world has gone mad.

  • Comment number 57.

    #51. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "In purely relative terms, the AQUA Ch. 5 temperatures have shot upwards in the past week. I know it's early days, but at 6 July they had reached joint second warmest and are only a whisker of 2010. "
    Yes, I have been watching it too, and it is getting close to 2010. However, it did get near to and even above 2010 during June, but those figures were later retracted, without any explanation, they could still yet turn out to be wrong.
    "If UAH reaches 0.384 in July then it would move 2011 inside the top ten warmest on record, at number 9. Perhaps not yet 'easily' inside the top ten, but getting there?"
    I'm surprised it wouldn't make it higher, but I take your word for it.
    But again, that's only July. The YTD hasn't even caught up with 2009 yet, and still may not.



  • Comment number 58.

    QuaesoVeritas. I agree that Labour carried on Thatcherite policies and I am no Labour fan either, the only party that appeals to me is UKIP, I don't fully trust the BNP who seem to talk a good game, especially on Global warming. I think you have to get a balance between people and profit. But I think Thatcher did that much damage to our traditional industries, what was there remaining to build on, she damaged an entire generation and put them on the scrap heap. Sheffield was renowned for making surgical instruments, but we seem more bothered about how cheap we can buy things, that don't last. I remember some where called Sheffield in Japan, stamping our name on their products. It is diffficult to buy any decent clothes anymore and that can't be good, if things are worn and then thrown away. How much global warming is caused by the female sex (look at their selection of clothes in M&S and else where), who say they are more concerned about the environment than the male and they tend to like the heating turned up a lot higher from my experiences.

  • Comment number 59.

    AQUA Ch. 5 satellite still upwards - now more or less tied with 2010 for 7 July. Arctic Sea ice extent currently 'below' the previous record low (in 2007) for this date in July: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Even Antarctic Sea ice extent, which has been rising over the past few winters, is well below normal for this time of year: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    "Global warming is over. Global cooling has begun" [Piers Corbyn, September 2008].

    "The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," [Prof Don Easterbrook, March 2009].

    Erm?

  • Comment number 60.

    #58. - timawells wrote:
    "I agree that Labour carried on Thatcherite policies and I am no Labour fan either, the only party that appeals to me is UKIP, "
    Same here, I am now a member!
    Maybe there is some chance of a UKIP presence in the Commons if we are typical!

    It is diffficult to buy any decent clothes anymore and that can't be good, if things are worn and then thrown away."
    The problem is, those "decent clothes" would be VERY expensive.

    "How much global warming is caused by the female sex (look at their selection of clothes in M&S and else where), who say they are more concerned about the environment than the male and they tend to like the heating turned up a lot higher from my experiences."
    Now that is NOT a direction of discussion I intend to go down!

  • Comment number 61.

    QuaesoVeritas.

    UKIP believe that Global warming is a hoax, so how can you vote for them.

    I like quality clothes and am willing to pay the price within reason.

    I am not into political correctness and if the opposite sex say they are more bothered about the environment, but are then the ones that indirectly cause more damage, it needs to be brought to their attention.

  • Comment number 62.

    Roy Spencer on his website has gone all defensive about the June UAH temperature. Watts up with that website are running articles claiming the June temperature must be wrong. Joe Bastardi also thinks it must be wrong, while at the same time ignoring the alarming state of the latest Arctic sea ice despite him saying last year that it was going to strongly recover and La nina marked the start of global cooling (which is what he said incidentally in 2007). And now we have John Marshall telling our host to get a life (he of the laws of thermodynamics must be wrong and I must be right twaddle). The global coolers are obviously rattled.

  • Comment number 63.

    Bastardi seems to have the knack, like a clairvoyant, of rendering his followers capable of only remembering the 'hits' while immediately forgetting the 'misses'. Postdiction I think is the term.

    It relies on the confirmation bias of the victi... (err), 'subject': the "tendency for people to favour information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true".

    His prediction look about as reliable as a clairvoyant's too, in my opinion

  • Comment number 64.

    #61. - timawells wrote:
    "UKIP believe that Global warming is a hoax, so how can you vote for them."
    I thought you said that they were the only party which appealed to you?
    Sometimes one has to vote for the least worst party.
    Actually, I said I was a member but I didn't say I voted for them.
    Sometimes one has to vote tactically.


  • Comment number 65.

    In previous blogs, I have posted on the the accuracy or otherwise of the various IPCC climate models. One problem I encountered in these assessments, was the fact that I was unable to replicate the multi-model ensemble mean anomalies to three decimal places, as shown in the files.
    The differences varied from scenario to scenario and on the period involved, but overall the official IPCC MMSs between 2000 and 2099 were consistently between 0.011 and 0.014 degrees lower than those from my calculations, which would suggest that the differences were not due to rounding errors. In addition, the MMMs for the period 1900 to 1999 showed much greater variation from the calculated figures, some positive and some negative, but on average lower.
    At first, I thought that the differences must be due to the use of an incorrect method of calculation, but I subsequently had it confirmed by Jerry Meehl that my method was correct.
    After further work, and some trial and error, I have been able to replicate the MMMs precisely, over the entire period, but only on the following assumptions:
    1. That the temperature anomalies in the IPCC models, on which the Multi-Model Means are based, for the period 1900 to 2099 are relative to the absolute model temperature predictions for the period 1980-2000, not to the period 1980-1999 as stated AR4.
    2. That in addition to the above, the temperature anomalies, including the Multi-Model Means for the period 1900-1999, are based on the 16 models included in the "commitment" scenario data files, NOT the 22 models which according to the IPCC website, make up the 20th century 20C3M scenario.
    There is an additional complication in that the 16 models which appear in the "commitment" data file folder are not the same as the 15 which are listed on the IPCC data website as being used in the "commitment" scenario.
    I am sure that some here will find the above conclusions difficult to believe, (I actually still find them difficult to believe myself), but if so, they are welcome to try and replicate the MMMs themselves and see if they don't come to the same conclusions.

  • Comment number 66.

    According to the latest figures, the AQUA CH5 temperature on July 8th, was 254.3k, compared to 254.289k on the same day in 2010.
    This is the first time any individual daily CH5 temperature has exceeded that of 2010.
    That is, assuming the 2011 CH5 temperatures are correct and are not changed retrospectively, as they were during early June.

  • Comment number 67.

    gadgetfriend . . .

    I looked for the WUWT articles your refer to and couldn't see anything other than the repeat of Dr Spencer's story from his site - they routinely do this. Can you point me to the articles you say are challenging the June temp please.

    newdwr54 . .
    JB's presentation style is entertaining - that helps people to easily forgive forecasts that go awry. Having said that, I think his long term forecasts are no worse than the MO or anybody else for that matter. His one week to one month, 'look what's coming' type forecasts seem reasonably good to me. I can't help thinking that he's 'picked on' simply because of his stance on AGW which is, quite frankly, irrelevant to his professional weather forecasting ability. Let's face it, he's a meteorologist. He knows as much (if not more) about the weather than most of the 'climate' team. That he steps out of his field to offer views on climate just gets under the skin of some people - yourself included it seems. If Paul McCartney were to say that that in his view, AGW was nonsense, would you then retort that the Beatles were rubbish?

  • Comment number 68.

    @ neil,
    typo and poor explanation- i meant to type + 0.06, as in add 0.06 to .18.

    It would have been FAR easier to just say 'change mine to 0.24' but for some reason i thought i'd make all our lives difficult.....

  • Comment number 69.

    QV @65
    you'll have to forgive me but I don't really know what you're on about. Is there any chance of you putting this is a simpler form with the significance of your conclusions in plain english. It sounds like you're onto something that only a few here on this blog could understand or double-check.

  • Comment number 70.

    67. lateintheday wrote:

    "I think [Joe Bastardi's] long term forecasts are no worse than the MO or anybody else for that matter."

    I'd love to see a proper analysis of the predictions of the likes of Joe and Piers Corbyn versus actual weather experienced in reality. Their forecasts are now hidden behind pay walls. (I wouldn't pay for a 'month ahead', or 'season ahead' weather forecast for the same reason that I wouldn't give money to a tea leaf reader or a palmist.)

    Unless I subscribe to the relevant services I have to rely on what might, for all I know, be highly selective 'post hoc' analyses, nearly always carried out by the 'forecast' organisation in question. Given that these are commercial organisations, which of them is likely to dwell on any 'misses'? They all have a commercial incentive to emphasise, or perhaps even exaggerate, any perceived 'hits'.

    And how specific are their forecasts, really. Paul mentioned in an earlier post that Piers Corbyn had accurately predicted this summer weather we're seeing in 2011. But in the same post he went on to say that the conditions we are currently experiencing this summer are relatively normal! You can see that an 'educated guess' would have done Pier's job for him very nicely.

    Also; the type of person who is willing to pay for this data is someone who: (i) is predisposed to being sympathetic to the providers, perhaps because of an affection for the personalities involved, and who (ii) is perhaps likely to be unwilling to admit, even to themselves, that they have wasted their money (hence 'confirmation bias').

    Now, I may be wrong. Maybe they do get it right more often than not, and in a way that can be shown to be statistically significant over time. But being aware of several of both Bastardi's and Corbyn's failed long term predictions (on weather and climate respectively), I remain sceptical of their forecasting abilities.

    I would be interested if anyone can point to any quantitative independent assessment of the accuracy of these commercial forecasts.

  • Comment number 71.

    #69. - lateintheday wrote:
    "you'll have to forgive me but I don't really know what you're on about. Is there any chance of you putting this is a simpler form with the significance of your conclusions in plain english. It sounds like you're onto something that only a few here on this blog could understand or double-check"
    Sorry, I thought I had expressed this in plain english.
    Possibly I have been so involved in these calculations that I think that everyone else has the same understanding as I do.
    Essentially, each scenario has a number of temperature projections from a number of models.
    Officially, the annual anomaly for each model is calculated by finding the average for 1980-1999 and comparing each year with that.
    The Multi-Model means are the average of all the anomalies for each model for each year.
    My first conclusion is that the IPCC anomalies are based on 1980-2000 (21 years), instead of 1980-1999 (20 years).
    Because the IPCC base period is slightly later, all of the anomalies are slightly lower.
    If you want to understand this better, then you should first go to the following site and download the Multi Model Mean figures and individual model temperature projections:
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_gcm_intro.html
    You will need to be able to unzip the individual model data files.

  • Comment number 72.

    newdwr54
    I agree with much of what you've said in terms of the detail - it's just the general tone that I think is unnecessary. I don't pay for forecasts of any sort because the weather doesn't effect my work. That some organisations are willing to pay for these forecasts suggests that there is a real, quantifiable benefit. Alternatively, perhaps it's just that people with responsibility for forward planning decisions like to cover their backs before they go into the boardroom.

  • Comment number 73.

    thanks QV. Your english was excellent - my comprehension was not.

  • Comment number 74.

    72. lateintheday:

    Sorry about the tone, but I get a distinct whiff of 'woo' off these 'long-range forecasting' characters.

    Here's an interesting article on Bastardi that doesn't help his case: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/18/207355/joe-bastardi-in-accuweather-chief-long-range-forecaster-s/

  • Comment number 75.

    well - I followed the link to read Romm's usual bluster. Couldn't really say that I saw what he saw in the JB video. Maybe that's just me not picking up on the nuances. His claim about the mis-reporting of the Navy's position on sea ice seemed to be backed up by the video. However, and I may be wrong on this, I understood that they had found that the sea ice was thickening at the edges through compaction. Not that sea ice was bouncing back in any way - just an ocean current effect.
    Having read a fair bit of Romm in the past, I'm not a fan. He tends to mis-represent the skeptic arguments and build strawmen. Whether he did this to JB on this occasion doesn't really concern me since I'm not his agent.
    As I pointed out on the last thread, JB's ice forecast for this summer looks unlikely at best from where we are now. If it turns out correct then hats off to him. A couple of years ago he said he expected a two steps forward, one step back growth in summer arctic sea ice. He doesn't seem to have changed his position on this. There's certainly little sign of him being right at the moment and his position is massively at odds with the views of the consensus. All of which makes me think that Schmidt's 'bold' prediction for this years temps looks sheepish by comparison.
    FWIW - of the two, I'd put my money on Schmidt this year!

  • Comment number 76.

    75. lateintheday:

    Sorry to be a pedant, but Schmidt's prediction was for surface temps rather than Arctic ice melt. Just to avoid possible future confusion.

    BTW, do you know what temperature database the guys on this site are using for their annual predictions?

  • Comment number 77.

    #76. - newdwr54 wrote:
    "BTW, do you know what temperature database the guys on this site are using for their annual predictions?"
    Personally I am using HadCRUT3, for compatability with the UKMO figure of 0.44c.
    I hope everyone else is!

  • Comment number 78.

    Apparently Sir Paul Beddington is suggesting that the Government should use overseas "climate-related" disasters to persuade British voters to accept unpopular climate policies, since the impacts of climate-change in Britain are likely to be "too modest" over the next two decades.
    http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/3426-beddingtons-scare-tactics-use-natural-disasters-to-push-through-green-politics.html
    Unfortunately, the original article is only available on subscription.
    If Beddington thinks these tactics are going to change the public's mind on climate-change, I think he is wrong. Hopefully the public will see through this deliberate attempt to mislead them. Each "climate-related" event will need to be challenged rigorously, since as far as I am aware, no individual event has ever been attributed to "climate-change". So to use such events as evidence, would be tantamount to lying. I also don't know why the report suggests that the public is likely to trust voluntary groups and campaigning organisations than politicians. I am personally increasingly distrusting of such bodies, when they use "climate-change" as a campaigning tool.

  • Comment number 79.

    I think I have worked out a quite accurate method of estimating the HadCRUT3 figure, a few days in advance of publication.
    Based on that method, I expect the June figure to be 0.4c +/- 0.05c
    It that turns out to be accurate, I'll let you know how I did it.
    If it doesn't, you won't be interested anyway!

  • Comment number 80.

    @ QV # 78

    Bishop Hill has a report on the Beddington report and a link to it

    and comments from Richard Betts who was involved in the preparation of the report

    some interesting comments. worth a look

    smoke me a kipper

  • Comment number 81.

    #80. - Spanglerboy wrote:
    "Bishop Hill has a report on the Beddington report and a link to it"
    Thanks for that.
    Oh dear, another 129 page report to read!
    I tend to agree with the first comment that life is too short to read this rubbish, but I suppose I will have to.



  • Comment number 82.

    QV no, you are only supposed to read the executive summary. That is how this stuff works. Can you imagine any 'busy' politician reading the whole report?

    smoke me a thingy

  • Comment number 83.

    #82. - Spanglerboy wrote:
    "QV no, you are only supposed to read the executive summary. That is how this stuff works. Can you imagine any 'busy' politician reading the whole report?"
    Ah, you mean the bit which doesn't include all of the caveat about the report not actually saying how likely such events are?


  • Comment number 84.

    QV you have already read too much

    In other news I can confirm from first hand experience that global warming is not affecting Sheffield or Leeds or the Wolley Edge service station but it is affecting the bedroom department of the Ikea store off Junction 27 of the M62

    smoke me some meatballs?

  • Comment number 85.

    #84. - Spanglerboy wrote:
    "QV you have already read too much"
    Nope, only what I gleaned from the comments on B.H.
    It's good to know that I am not a "lone voice, crying in the wilderness".


  • Comment number 86.

    lateintheday,
    Have you by any chance downloaded the IPCC data files from the web site to which I gave the link?
    I only ask because it is possible that they may change the files and if they do, I won't have any independent proof of what was there.

  • Comment number 87.

    QV - I've downloaded the files for temp (not precip) named a1b, a2, b1 and commit. Also the ar4 multimodel global means tas file. Let me know if I've got the right ones and I'll keep them for posterity.

  • Comment number 88.

    #87. - lateintheday wrote:
    "QV - I've downloaded the files for temp (not precip) named a1b, a2, b1 and commit. Also the ar4 multimodel global means tas file. Let me know if I've got the right ones and I'll keep them for posterity."
    Thanks, that sounds right. No need to download the precip. files, unless you particularly want them.
    Have you been able to unzip the temperature files and put them in a permanent folder? When I unzip them on my computer, it puts them in a temporary folder and I have to copy them to a permanent one.
    I have just noticed the reference to TAS in the multi-model average file but I can't work out what it stands for. I think it must be "temperature anomaly" something, but I can't find what the "something" is. Have you any idea? It's probably obvious.
    I have contacted Haiyan Teng on the subject and she seems unable, or unwilling to explain how the averages were calculated, which I find strange for something so important.

  • Comment number 89.

    QV - the files are safely stored on the hard drive. They auto unzipped by the look of it. I hope I haven't given you the impression that I know what to do with them! I've looked briefly at the contents and a1, a2, b1 all have 21 .dat files which I've accessed/opened in text edit.

    Typically, the files are named like cccma_cgcm3_1.dat and the information looks like this in each .dat file:
    1900 285.838989
    1901 285.829224
    1902 285.890442
    1903 285.870667
    1904 285.899872
    etc etc.

    The commit file has only 16 .dat files.

    Hope that makes sense.

  • Comment number 90.

    #89. - lateintheday wrote:
    "Typically, the files are named like cccma_cgcm3_1.dat and the information looks like this in each .dat file:
    1900 285.838989
    The commit file has only 16 .dat files.
    Hope that makes sense."

    Thanks for doing that, it makes perfect sense, that's how they should look.
    In each case, the figure is the projected temperature in degrees K for the year stated.
    The fact that the "commit" folder only has 16 files is what I would expect, but if you go to the following link,
    you will see that there are only 15 models listed as being in the commit scenario:
    http://www.ipcc-data.org/ar4/scenario-COMMIT.html
    It's not just that there is a file missing from the above list as there are two files in the folder which are not on the above page, i.e.,
    cccma_cgm3_1_t47 and ncar_pcm1, and there is one file which is listed on the web page, which is not in the folder, i.e. bccr_bcm2_0.
    Some of the file names are slightly different, which makes it awkward to compare them.

  • Comment number 91.

    The UK Met Office (UKMO) has poured cold water on media reports today that Britain is heading toward the coolest and dullest summer for two decades.
    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/uk-met-office-downplays-dull-summer-reports/26061.html

    Must have missed the dull summer reports in the media!

  • Comment number 92.

    #91. - ukpahonta wrote:
    "The UK Met Office (UKMO) has poured cold water on media reports today that Britain is heading toward the coolest and dullest summer for two decades.
    Must have missed the dull summer reports in the media!"
    The source of the UKMO comments seem to be from the Met Office News Blog:
    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/88-degree-heatwave-or-a-cool-and-dull-summer-you-decide/
    However, I haven't been able to find any of the media predictions of a dull summer to which the UKMO are referring.
    I suppose June was the coolest for 20 years based on CET, although personally I don't think it's been too bad so far, although that might be influenced by the good weather we had in April and May, which technically wasn't summer.


  • Comment number 93.

    It's a misconception to assume that 'global warming' will lead to cloudless and dry British summers, alas.

    In general, places that are already wet are likely to get wetter, and places that are already dry are likely to get drier.

    Nobody said it would be fun!

  • Comment number 94.

    Wow! QV
    "I think I have worked out a quite accurate method of estimating the HadCRUT3 figure, a few days in advance of publication.
    Based on that method, I expect the June figure to be 0.4c +/- 0.05c"

    If the HadCRUT3 rise is so low the year end forcast of 0.44 looks even more unlikely

  • Comment number 95.

    #94. - NeilHamp wrote:
    "If the HadCRUT3 rise is so low the year end forcast of 0.44 looks even more unlikely"
    Let's wait and see if my estimate is correct first!

  • Comment number 96.

    I have received a reply from the IPCC data website to my query asking for the definition of "TAS" and "TOS".
    The reply was:
    "TAS stands for "Temperature de l'Air a la Surface" which in English means Air Surface Temperature."
    Hardly surprising that I couldn't work out what "TAS" meant. I hadn't considered French"
    Presumably "TOS" means:
    "Temperature de l'Ocean a la Surface"

  • Comment number 97.

    After barely exceeding the 2010 figure for July 8th., the AQUA CH5 temperature has fallen away again and was 0.139 degrees below 2010 on July 11th.
    The current cumulative mean CH5 anomaly for July is 0.306 deg., which based on 2003-10, is equivalent to a UAH of 0.328 deg. and an RSS of 0.424 deg, although based on recent experience, about 0.1 deg. needs to be added to the UAH figure, but nothing needs to be added to RSS.
    The cumulative CH5 anomaly for 2011 is running at about -0.056 deg., which now puts it slightly above the 2009 figure of -0.058 deg. at the same date.

  • Comment number 98.

    According to the June "State of the Climate Report", issued by NDCD/NOAA, the global anomaly for June was 0.58c, compared to 0.50c in May. After adjustment to 1961-90, these are equivalent to 0.44c and 0.36c respectively.

    This makes June the 7th warmest on record according to NCDC/NOAA and this January to June, the 11th warmest on record.

    The NH anomaly was 0.68c (0.59c), compared to 0.576c (0.49c) in May, and the SH anomaly was 0.48c (0.30c), compared to 0.49c (0.25c) in May. Adjusted figures in brackets.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/6

    The figure adjusted to 1961-90 of 0.44c seems to be consistent with my estimate of 0.4c for HadCRUT3 as both would involve an increase of about 0.08c.

    The actual NCDC/NOAA data files don't seem to have been updated yet, so I can't find out if any previous figures have been changed retrospectively.

  • Comment number 99.

    Forgot to mention, at the risk of irritating some people, that as a result of the June global figure, the 10 year linear trend as fallen from -0.2055c/century to -0.2297c/century, subject to possible revision if any figures have been changed retrospectively.

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.