“Global Sea Surface Temperature continues to drop“. Dr. Roy Spencer returns to say that temperatures are dropping. In one particular short-term satellite dataset (the AQUA satellite’s eight years of AMSR-E sea surface temperature readings). Thus disproving Global Warming.
“UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record“. Dr. Roy Spencer declares 2010 and 1998 to be a tie for “warmest year” in the UAH satellite record. So stop talking about the GISS surface temperature records.
Also, Dr. Spencer changes his comparison “base period”:
we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”.
An entirely accidental effect will be that “because the most recent decade averaged somewhat warmer than the previous two decades, the anomaly values will be about 0.1 deg. C lower than they used to be.”
“September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C“. Dr. Roy Spencer boosts his publication list with a paper in the noted scientific journal, WattsUpWithThat.com. How would you cite that, I wonder?
The satellite-measured global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly rose 0.06℃ in September (that’s a record by the way Roy), but the global Sea Surface Temperature is falling! It’s crazy. What can any scientist do in the face of “Mother Nature’s sense of humor”? Nothing, so why bother?
More incurious denialist minds.
“An over the top view of satellite sensor failure“. You know someone’s gone “off the reservation” when even Anthony Watts can’t choke down a ‘warmist’ conspiracy theory about temperature records. Apparently his readers have clamored for him to spread the word.
Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog. (from “co2 insanity”)
Dr. Anderson is an elderly materials scientist with a sudden interest in, and woefully limited understanding of, satellite temperature measurements. It’s not normal, expected and correctable instrument issues. No, it’s a deliberate conspiracy to falsify the readings! A classic of going emeritus.
I can’t help but admire in passing how Climate Change Dispatch describes Dr. Jones’ repeated exoneration by the many “Climategate” investigations: CRU’s Professor Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution by way of a technicality. Yeah, in that there wasn’t even a technicality that could be used against him.
“UAH Global Temperature – still in a holding pattern“. Thanks for the weather observation from Roy Spencer, Anthony. I wonder if Anthony will ever stop pretending not to understand that good old natural climate variation, such as the eastern Pacific Ocean El Niño circulation pattern, will continue while the progressive human impacts express themselves. It’s not either/or.
It’s well understood that natural “cooling” climate variations can suppress the man-made rise, but when they swing back to “warming” they will magnify it. All Anthony is doing is pretending that these pauses are significant. “Expect drops in the months ahead” says Anthony. So what? But it will be interesting to watch him squirm out of his meaningless prediction if it fails to come to pass.
Interesting admission from Dr. Spencer:
As of Julian Day 212 (end of July), the race for warmest year in the 32-year satellite period of record is still too close to call with 1998 continuing its lead by only 0.07 C.
Doesn’t sound like cooling to me. Spencer and sundry denialists are still clinging to that crazy 1998 El Niño as the answer to the painfully obvious warming trends.
“Global Sea Surface Temperature Cooling Continues“. Dr. Roy Spencer lets us know that the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) as recorded by NASA’s Aqua satellite is continuing to fall. It’s been falling for months! That’s a trend! Not.
Yes, the well-known El Niño/La Niña circulation pattern in the tropical east Pacific Ocean has entered a phase that brings colder water to the surface. No, the oceans are not cooling now.
“Satellite Temperatures and El Niño“. Steven Goddard has convinced himself that recent satellite temperature observations are “too warm”. He’s compared them the surface temperature records and decided that the satellite record is somehow incorrect because of unspecified El Niño effects. Maybe it’s because of aliens with investments in carbon-neutral technologies?
I thought that the surface temperature records were hopelessly contaminated by Urban Heat Island effect, human incompetence and malevolent selection and were to be ignored (because they showed a strongly significant warming trend) in favor of the purity of satellite measurements (a useful delaying tactic because they were too new to have good statistical meaning). I guess the surface temperature records are fine when they suit the denialist argument du jour.
Here’s what happens: The surface temperature record is only observed at the surface. Satellite measurements reflect a much ‘thicker’ selection of the atmosphere. The vertical transport of heat/moisture has a lag of several months and hence satellite measurements will normally trail surface measurements.
“Spencer: strong negative feedback found in radiation budget“. Sometimes denialists proclaim that there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT, sometimes they admit that it is REAL BUT SMALL. Dr. Roy Spencer takes the latter approach here. He’s been “slicing and dicing the [Earth's radiation budget data] different ways” trying to find a value of CO2 sensitivity that lets him claim the climate impact is small. Guess what? He found one.
Spencer does it “without going into the detailed justification” by:
- Ignoring data from polar areas, where most of the climate change has occurred.
- Comparing global radiation data to ocean temperatures.
- Pretending that 7 years of satellite data is a sufficient time span for climate analysis (try 30 years).
- Restricting his plot to just month-to-month variation.
- Using only monthly temperature changes that were greater than 0.03°C.
- Ignoring decades of independent empirical studies that conclude that climate sensitivity must be somewhere between 2.3 to 4.1°C.
- Sweeping away the 0.6°C warming over last 100 years as natural (therefore a similar estimated rise for this century must also be natural).
- Ignoring the reality check that ice ages are impossible if CO2 sensitivity is as low as he declares.
What does Dr. Spencer end up with? I mean besides the WUWT comments declaring him a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize. He ends up with an artificial statistical correlation with no physical explanation to support it.
“March UAH Global Temperature Update“. Dr. Roy Spencer checks in again with the latest global satellite temperature values, with a couple of recent denialist examples highlighted. Still going inconveniently up…