Temp Anoamlies the past month... Europe, Asia, North Africa & Alaska amaze me

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_30b.rnl.html

Yeah I'm with Arnost I will be suprised if the temps get that low by April but you never know

GFS Deterministic Global 2 Metre Anomaly expecting another crash soon, rivalling that of the crash at the beginning of February and certainly sharper.

http://policlimate.com/climate/gfs_t2m_bias.html

AMSU 600mb temps are also once again crashing and dipping past 2008 levels.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001

(Show global average temperature at > Then click on '600mb AQUA ch05')

Depending on how it goes over the coming 9-10 days, I'd expect another negative reading when the Global Satellite Temp anomalies come out in a few weeks. All part and parcel from the effects of La Niña (lag) and perhaps low solar activity... who knows, maybe also last years sub-plinian volcano eruptions played a small part?

For a sec you had me exited SGB. But the sea surface temp you posted is when the AMSU-E satelite died .
Never mind , the channel 5 is once again in record low teritory.
Remember when Bill said it will peak in APR , I dissmist it then , but as a betting man I wouldnt go against it , unless I get good odds .

Once again I ask ( there was no response last time )

What do you guys think makes it to jump 0.8 deg in 2 weeks ? up and down ?
My explanation was latent heat added and lost .
The area of Asia and Europe was large enough to suport it , now when the snow and ice starts to melt is removing the latent heat from environment .
It could be wrong from start thought .
But in the end added heat or lost on global scale must be 50% either way .

Just a little chart showing two-year periods covering the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, the Super-El Nino of 1997-98 and the last 13 months of UAH temperatures (the daily numbers).

After Pinatubo, it took 420 days before lower troposphere temperatures reached their low values of -0.5C.

After the 1997-98 El Nino peaked at +2.9C in the last week of November 1997, it took 110 days until temperatures finally peaked at about 0.7C.

The 2011-12 La Nina really had two peak lows at -1.15C at the end of Nov 2011 and the end of Jan 2012.

We will reach the lows of Pinatubo? After looking closer at the numbers, definitely NOT (a little too much exaggeration on my part), but there is still cooling to come yet.

And to answer Vlasta's question, temps can move very rapidly over two weeks. But once we start averaging over a month, the ups and downs are offset somewhat.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4921/ensovolclags.png

Let's look at Land Temperatures in January, 2012.

Something like a La Nina signal, but the middle of North America should be blue from Alaska to Illinois - not above normal. There was an unusual circulation pattern over Alaska which kept the middle of North America warm, related to the next point below.




Now let's look at 8 days in Early February 2012. This is most definitely, not a La Nina signal. Europe has little correlation to the ENSO and North America should be dark blue from Alaska to Illinois agian, not way above normal. The US south and southeast could be warm, but there are some blues in Texas.

This is an Arctic Oscillation / polar vortex break-down signal. There a various maps showing this.

Very interesting reading BI
Found this article on the breakdown of the polar vortex during an El Nino phase 2009/2010 and resultant cold winter in parts of Northern hemisphere
quote
“In December 2009, the Arctic was 9 degrees F warmer than normal, and mid-latitude continents were 9 degrees F cooler than normal, with record cold and snow conditions in northern Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America,” says Dr. Overland. “This is the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. The winter of 2009–2010 had especially extreme weather in the U.S. as moisture from El Nino hit cold air from the Arctic.”

The same result of cold working its way south but slightly different distribution of the cold outbreak in an El Nino?

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

Bill, can you quote the links to the pics above?. They are excellent pictures with very good resolution, would like to keep a tab on those myself.
Thanks for posting.

Lots of good data at this site, which is supposed to summarize all of Nasa's satellite info. Used to be able to do sea surface temperatures as well down to 1.4 degree boxes but the instrument went down.


http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?group=67

Hansen's and the IPCC's predictions starting at the time they were made versus Hadcrut3 and RSS/UAH satellite observations to date. There is obviously something very wrong with the climate models and it is time for this to be recognized.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3136/ipccforecastsobsjan2012.png

All your graphs have merits Bill .
At this moment on RealClimate warmista site have the same topic .
What a time to post yours !!!
I will follow your progress .
You might end up as many of us have been banned from there .

Using my continuous weather records going back to May/2007 I now have a cooling trend for the last (almost 5 years) for the first time since I have kept records anywhere. The cooling trend is only 1deg over 106 years using linear regression, but it is there. So at last I have a steady climate with no warming over a reasonable sort of period of close to 5 years. The value at the end of the trend is still above normal compared to 20-30 years ago, but for the time being we have plateau'd and who knows could even continue to drop.
http://www.weather.liway.com/ClimateTrend.png
All other records I have kept before over 30 years have never had a cooling trend for such a period as this. I think there is a similar story with world trends also that seems to be suggesting that temps are no longer rising.

Regardless of the gradient of temperature increase or a slowing in the gradient for warming since 2002..

there has been no negative anomaly since 1995.

We have remained in a positive anomaly since 1995, despite the regular peaks and troughs in mean global temp



Do you think we will ever have a negative anomaly ?
What forcing factor do you think is at work reducing the gradient of the warming trend?
The Australian anomaly temps don't agree with this . so where on earth has it got colder?

In 2009 we had solar minimum and 2 strong La Nina years since
( cooling period)
and we are still not in negative anomaly territory !!!!!!!

Remember there were two major volcanoes in April 1982 and June 1991 which dropped temperatures by about 0.4C peaking at 15 months later and lasting for up to 3 years. Removing that or taking it into account makes a difference in the flatness of the trend.

And Hadcrut3 is now at 0.218C.

From NOAA Global surface temperature anomalies;

"The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1971-2000 base period. This period is used because it has the widest distribution for historical data, which enables more resolution (detail) for comparing region-by-region effects. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it."

Translation; The temperature anomalies that you are looking at are calculated using the standard 30 year long base line period from 1971 to 2000 as that period has the most comprehensive and best records or so they claim.
These anomalies will give a positive or negative anomaly number.

But then so that the ignorant media and public and others can get a better feel for the excessively warming trends in global temperatures, they then use those anomaly numbers and just compare them against the whole of the 20th century global temperature averages.

As the whole of 20 th century global temps are somewhat cooler than the 30 year period from 1971 to 2000 so the anomalies appear to be always positive and are rarely minus.

And the reasons why those whole of the 20th century temperatures are cooler, particularly in the early half of the 20th century when all those lying thermometers told a tale of extremely high temperatures through the 1930's, can be found by looking at this blink comparison chart which will show you just how the early 20th century suddenly became cooler and the late 20th century much warmer.
And lots more here as well on anomalies and past temperatures.

The solar output runs global temperature and that is continuing to weaken in output, and temps will likely turn from flattening to cooling soon Crikey...despite any very weak warming effect from CO2 which is all it does on its own...without positive feedbacks added which have never been proven to occur ever.

Hi guys - first post!

Since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade.

Question:

How do we explain cooling of the upper atmosphere, greater warming at night and greater warming at higher latitudes?

Answer:

The increased greenhouse effect, the major mechanism of anthropogenic global warming.

CeeBee

-------------

More reading here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

As a first post CB you blotted your copy book by quoting from Skeptical Science.
Even hardened warmist climate scientists wince at Skeptical Science as their first object is to subtly distort any science so as to reflect that CAGW is occurring plus alter and delete, as has been testified many times, any posts that dare to question their claims. Nobody except dyed in the wool warmists uses them as a reference source anymore.

And as usual with the warmists, a claim is made without ANY back up data or evidence and then demand, contrary to all scientific practice, that the skeptics prove the claim is wrong.
In science it is beholden that the scientists or those making the claim must provide the data and evidence backing that claim and outline the means of arriving at that conclusion so others can check the claim and replicate the results to verify the claim.
But not your run of the mill global warmers. They are above long accepted scientific practices.

Water vapour is THE greenhouse gas. CO2 is secondary to the role of water vapour in keeping this planet at a habitable temperature for life to exist.
But as nobody has figured out how to control water vapour and how to penalise humans for putting more or less WV into the atmosphere so CO2 has conveniently become the big bogey for the warmistas.

The climate sensitivity of CO2 alone and without any positive feedbacks is about [ and still not settled after 25 years and a few hundred million dollars being spent on the research ] 1C to 1.2 C for a doubling of the current levels of CO2 of 390 ppm,
Repeat; that is without any positive feedbacks included such as water vapour.

Add the current levels of water vapour as a "positive" feedback ie; increasing the warming effects of the CO2 and that then supposedly about doubles the increase or "climate sensitivity" of CO2. Again after hundreds of millions of dollars and 25 years with models and research the answers on the accurate climate sensitivity numbers are still not known within some 3 or 4 degrees. The climate sensitivity which the IPCC has brought down to about 2.4C to 4.5 C from a top of a ridiculous 6.4 C with a suggested figure of about 3C being the Climate Sensitivity number for CO2 plus it's positive feedbacks.

But a lot of researchers are now starting to suggest that the climate sensitivity figure may be closer to 1C to 2.4 C with a probable figure around 1.2 C or even less at which it becomes impossible to differentiate from the background noise and of course means that the whole case for CAGW just collapses and an entire global warming / climate change alarmist industry loses any reason to exist.

The climate models all predict an increase in the levels of humidity or more water vapour in the upper atmosphere.
This out put of all the IPCC models led to the very heavily publicised claim up to a couple of years ago that the appearance of a "Hot Spot" about ten kilometres up above the equator due to greenhouse effect of the model predicted increase in water vapour content in that upper troposphere area would indicate that global warming was really under way.
It was even stated by now seen as grossly overconfident warmist scientists that if the Hot Spot did not appear then there was no global warming, a claim that obviously has disappeared and has been buried they hope.

We are still all waiting for any evidence at all that such a HotSpot has been located or even that it will appear.

What has happened appears to be directly the opposite of the model's predictions.
The water vapor levels above the 850 HpA level [ about 5000 feet ] are not rising and maybe are even declining. This of course leads to less feedback effect and therefore less or even a negative feedback where the warming of the CO2 is negated by the decline in the WV greenhouse warming effect in the upper atmosphere.
The satellites in fact are detecting a significant cooling of the upper atmosphere in recent years in a direct contradictory of the claims and outputs of the climate model predictions.

Below the 850 Hpa levels, in the convective layer, WV is apparently increasing leading to more low level cloud cover, warmer nights as the higher water vapour levels [ tropical nights with their high water vapour / high humidity are always warmer than the southern low humidity nights which allow heat energy / radiation to returnto spabce with little to impede it and so a rapid night cooling effect ] and low cloud traps the heat but cooler days as the increased low cloud cover has a higher albedo; ie reflects a lot more solar radiation back into space and therefore at ground level it is cooler.

High level clouds can trap heat or can also transmit heat energy allowing it to reradiate back into space and that also is another unknown with big consequences.
It is hypothesized that high level equatorial clouds appear to do both but on a cyclic basis over a period of a possible 30 day cycle.

A recent paper for you to read ; Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data

Some considerable length quotes follow from "Climate Warming Science"

& Water Vapor / Humidity Implications for the GHG Based Global Warming Theory including the URL's of the peer reviewed papers from which this information is sourced.

&
Problems With IPCC Models

For another view on the subject in the above post from NASA's Science Briefs and from the alarmist Hansen run GISS;

Uncertainties in Understanding Low- and High-Latitude Climate Sensitivity Affect Ability to Predict Climate Change Impacts

CB that skepitcal science has not touched the surface into what effects the many and varied outputs from the sun have on earth's climate
There are many science studies where strong connectiions have been made between the two. And there is much to be yet discovereed, our knowledge is weak at this stage. The corellations are consistant & high with solar and global temps, much higher than CO2, of which corellates very poorly in the past 15 years especially, and also through nother historical periods! Temp always leads CO2 in all studies undertaken, not the other way around.