Global Temperature Trend Update: July 2011

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through July, 2011.

July 2011 was 3rd warmest July in 33-year temperature record

Global Temperature Report: July 2011

---

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

---

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.

---

June temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.32 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.38 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.25 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.23 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

---

Notes on data released August 1, 2011:

July 2011 was the third warmest July in the 33-year satellite-based global temperature record, which is consistent with the long-term warming trend seen in the satellite data, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

A few regions with warmer than normal temperatures were scattered across the North Hemisphere, including the eastern two-thirds of North America. July's two "warmest" anomalies were in West Antarctic, more or less due south of … Marin County, California. Winter Antarctic temperatures were as much as 5.57 C (about 10.03 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms there.

July Averaged Global
Temperature Anomalies
   July 1979-2011
 Warmest to Coolest
  (degrees Celsius)

  1. 1998   +0.441  
  2. 2010   +0.419  
*3. 2011   +0.372  
  4. 2009   +0.359  
  5. 2005   +0.272  
  6. 2002   +0.219  
  7. 2007   +0.181  
  8. 2006   +0.147  
  9. 1991   +0.118  
10. 1988   +0.117  
11. 2003   +0.109  
12. 2001   +0.061  
13. 1983   +0.048  
14. 1987   +0.044  
15. 1995   +0.025  
16. 1997   +0.015  
17. 1980   -0.002  
18. 2008   -0.009  
19. 1990   -0.028  
20. 1981   -0.031  
21. 1994   -0.032  
22. 1999   -0.075  
23. 1996   -0.086  
24. 2000   -0.087  
25, 1993   -0.115  
26. 1979   -0.122  
27. 1989   -0.172  
28. 2004   -0.189  
29. 1986   -0.259  
30. 1982   -0.328  
31. 1984   -0.336  
32. 1992   -0.405  
33. 1985   -0.447

Go here to take a look at the monthly data since 1978. 

Comments

[SugarFree]

Yay! Something for everyone to complain about!

[Mike G]

Wow, third highest in 33 years. The odds against that being luck of the draw are nearly 11 to 1! Goobal warting must be true.

[Concerned Boyfriend]

Honey, I hate to tell you, but the doctor says I have global warts.

No, I don't know how I got them. Do you?

[Brett L]

Actually, the odds of it holding any single position are 33:1, the odds of it holding one of the top 3 are 11:1. And even though I think the evidence for AGW is bunk, the last decade holds 8 of the top 11. That is statistically unlikely if there is NO trend.

[kinnath]

Take a sample of a million years, then I might see this as being significant.

[Brett L]

You should read again. I'm not stating that a) people caused this or b) the end of the world is nigh. However, with 8 of the last 10 years being in the warmest 1/3rd, it is statistically likely that surface temps are rising. Note that the whole delta is about 0.9 degrees C. It isn't a random distribution, but it could very well be insignificant over the longer term.

[kinnath]

A sample size of 33 is crap.

[Tony]

Unless it's a cold winter, then a sample size of 1 is adequate to prove you right.

[The Man]

From Anthony Watt's WUWT:

"So, weather is climate whenever it's hot,

but climate is weather whenever it's not."

[Brett L]

For what? Spotting a trend in 33 years' worth of data? Don't over-analyze my very narrow argument.

[kinnath]

Don't make very narrow arguments that don't serve any pratical purpose.

[Brett L]

Ooh, burn.

[kinnath]

You have to look at least 2,000 years back to see that temps during the Roman period and the Medieaval Warming Period are roughly the same as now.

The raging debate (polluted with lots of confirmation bias) is whether it is marginally hotter or cooler now than at the peak of the Medieval Warming Period.

[Tony]

What raging debate? The only reason you've heard of the MWP is because it happens to be the historically warmest period of the last 2,000 years. So you can point to it and say, look, see nothing to worry about, it was warmer once!

Except it wasn't warmer then. We've long surpassed the MWP in terms of global temperatures.

[kinnath]

Take the dick out of your mouth. I can't understand what you're saying.

[Tony]

You don't understand much do you.

[Joshua Corning]

Except it wasn't warmer then. We've long surpassed the MWP in terms of global temperatures.

oh really?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_C5VM.....+chart.JPG

[Tacos mmm...]

Climate cycles much more quickly than that. Currently we're in the interglacial of an ice age, with the last glacial ending about 10,000 years ago. We've had a half dozen glacials in the past half million years or so.

[kinnath]

Da Comrade!

[MNG]

Yes, anyone who thinks all those scientists are right and you ideologues are not must be a communist...

[kinnath]

Two years of Russian in high school, 1 year in college, 20 trips to Moscow on business -- sometimes "Da" just pops into my head.

Go fuck yourself you shit-brained polysci speed bump on the road to recovery.

[Azathoth]

It's fraction of a degree--that means that, to the layman, the temperature is exactly the same along this entire chart because they don't measure in fractions of degrees. If it's 90 degrees out, it's 90 degrees out--not 90 and 3/10 degrees.

Let's put this logically. Since we've been tracking this, temperatures have remained steadily within norms.

Because that's the truth.

[Syd Henderson]

You do understand the difference between .3 degrees in your living room and .3 across the entire f*cking planet? The latter is a lot of heat.

[Mike M.]

"I'm yawning. I'm yawning some more. And, zzzzzzzzzz."

[sarcasmic]

Correlation is causation.

[Entropy]

Oh, Christ, not this shit again...

[ScottyB]

I don't understand why libertarians cannot wrap their brains around the fact that AGW is clearly happening. The debate should be over what (if anything) we should do about it. I thought libertarians were pro-science?

[kinnath]

Take a sample of a million years, then I might see this as being significant.

[nobody]

A sample of a million years would be silly. That would account for multiple glacial and interglacial periods. There's been incredible temperature fluctuation over the last million years. The bigger issue is that the ignorant AGW proponents (i.e. your typical twenty-something) think that AGW will bring temperatures more extreme than has ever been seen in earth history, which is supremely false.

To use our favorite new meme...

AGW occurred.

And nothing else happened.

[kinnath]

A sample of a million years would be silly. That would account for multiple glacial and interglacial periods. There's been incredible temperature fluctuation over the last million years.

That is the very point.

[Tacos mmm...]

But that doesn't mean that as humans, we shouldn't be concerned; we have to grow crops every season.

[kinnath]

How many unstated assumptions can we find in this declaration:

1) You assume that this warming cycle is different than all the others.

2) You assume that we caused this warming cycle.

3) You asume that we can can halt or reverse the cycle.

4) You assume that the consequences of trying to halt of reverse the cycle are less than the consequences of coping with the warming cycle.

I don't assume (1), so the others are moot.

[Tony]

You are the only person assuming anything... we know that this "cycle" is different, because we know what caused it, and our ability to halt it grows weaker with time. Nobody is confused on this issue except people who choose to be.

[kinnath]

Take the dick out of your mouth. I can't understand what you're saying.

[ScottyB]

with such keen debating skills, i can see why you are able to persuade so many people to your point of view. the website is called Reason, after all.

[Sam Grove]

"Know": I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[sarcasmic]

What is the optimal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for growing crops?

What is the ideal global temperature for growing crops?

Will the amount of arable land increase or decrease as the climate changes (assuming the change is significant)?

Anyone who claims to know the answers to those questions is full of shit, and anyone who believes legislation should be passed based upon answers to those questions is a blithering idiot.

[JW]

I'm still at a loss to understand why a warming world is worse than a cooling world.

Tough to grow crops on a mile-thick glacier.

[MNG]

"There's been incredible temperature fluctuation over the last million years."

What, do you think that all those scientists out there don't know that, and yet they don't think this shatters the theory of AGW. What's more likely, they know something important here you don't, or vice versa?

[Dyson]

They fucked up.

[Fatty Bolger]

You answered your own question. Libertarians are pro-science. So think about that for a minute. Think hard.

[Jeff]

AGW =/= GW

[sarcasmic]

When you say "what (if anything) we should do about it", I assume you mean "what (if anything) government should force society to do about it".
That is the great statist fallacy: if government doesn't force something to happen, nothing will happen.
Libertarians simply reject that fallacy.

[MNG]

Why would you assume he means that, unless you are just hell-bent on looking for boogeymen under every bed and in every closet? It seems clear that what he is saying is "libertarianism is not a scientific theory but a political one, the libertarian position should not be to deny the science but debate the political implications."

[sarcasmic]

"debate the political implications" means "debate what the government should force society to do about it".

Jesus fucking H Christ you're so stupid you don't even know you're stupid.

[MNG]

The political implications could mean doing nothing (because the kind of coordinated effort that would be necessary is unlikely or because the costs of doing x or y would be greater than the benefits, or because market forces might help matters [many people are already working to voluntarily change their behavior]).

It's just fanatics like you must have boogemen lurking around every corner.

[sarcasmic]

"The political implications could mean doing nothing"

Haaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaa ha ha ho ha ha!

Hum.

Yeah. Sure.

Government passing an opportunity to enact legislation and regulation because of the possible consequences.

You funny. You really funny.

You know what would be even funnier?
If you suggested that the government might repeal legislation or regulation because of the consequences.
That would be way funny!

Whew! I'm out of breath.

[Neu Mejican]

When you say "what (if anything) we should do about it", I assume you mean "what (if anything) government should force society to do about it".

Society > government. The "we" implies society, not government. While it is possible that society's response will include government action, most environmentalist advocate personal life-style changes first as the most effective response.

Next in line are government actions that incentivize those life-style changes (taxes/tax credits) and regulations on industry. The political debate happens here. But the debate about what "we" should do about it (if anything) is broader than the one you implicate.

[sarcasmic]

When environmentalists advocate lifestyle changes that they would voluntarily adopt, they also demand government action to force everyone else to also adopt those changes.

When the word "we" is used in such context is almost always means "government forcing people to do what 'we' would do anyway".

[Neu Mejican]

"the political debate happens here" means "debate what the government should force society to do about it".

Jesus fucking H Christ you're so stupid you don't even know you're stupid.

[R C Dean]

Political debate = debate whether and to what extent the government should be involved.

Government involvement = the overt, implicit, or threatened use of force.

I'm not sure what's so stupid about that.

[Neu Mejican]

Sorry you can't keep up RC. It really ain't that hard. People keep pretending that when someone says "political debate" they mean something other than "debate about the role of government."

[sarcasmic]

Government is force. Period.
So a debate about "the role of government" is a debate about individuals in government imposing force upon individuals in society.
That's all government is. Nothing more.
Government is dickheads saying "You have to do this or I'll summon men with guns" or "You can't do that or I'll summon men with guns".
That's it.
Nothing more.

[Neu Mejican]

Government is force. Period.

I don't buy your premise. Force is only part of the story.

So a debate about "the role of government" is a debate about individuals in government imposing force upon individuals in society.

No, not really. Government is a part of society, a process society uses to achieve certain ends. Of course governments are instituted by the people in a society and derive their just powers from their consent. Whenever any government fails to recognize this relationship, it is the right of the people in the society to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new process by which they can achieve their desired ends.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Neu Mejican,

While it is possible that society's response will include government action

An oxymoron, as "society" does not respond. Only individuals act.

[...]most environmentalist advocate personal life-style changes first as the most effective response.

Most environmentalists have advocated for life-style changes to be imposed from above, Neu. Please do not gloss over that fact.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Neu Mejican,

Next in line are government actions that incentivize those life-style changes (taxes/tax credits) and regulations on industry.

So much for environmentalists just promoting the personal changes. I love how you shoot down your own argument just because you cannot stop being a Statist fuck (and slaver to boot.)

[Neu Mejican]

Old Mexican|8.2.11 @ 1:47PM|#

Re: Neu Mejican,

While it is possible that society's response will include government action

An oxymoron, as "society" does not respond. Only individuals act.

Nope. You want this to be true, you want it to be axiomatic, but it isn't. Cooperative actions undertaken by groups are at least as common as individual acts undertaken by individuals.

[...]most environmentalist advocate personal life-style changes first as the most effective response.

Most environmentalists have advocated for life-style changes to be imposed from above, Neu. Please do not gloss over that fact.

The first solution advocated is typically not "imposed from above." Your impression on this is just not accurate.

[Neu Mejican]

Old Mexican|8.2.11 @ 1:49PM|#

Re: Neu Mejican,

Next in line are government actions that incentivize those life-style changes (taxes/tax credits) and regulations on industry.

So much for environmentalists just promoting the personal changes. I love how you shoot down your own argument just because you cannot stop being a Statist fuck (and slaver to boot.)

Sorry hombre, but your inability to read ain't my problem. If you can't parse a proposition as simple as the one in my comment, you shouldn't spout off about how additional propositions "shoot it down."

[Old Mexican]

Re: Neu Mejican,

Nope. You want this to be true, you want it to be axiomatic, but it isn't. Cooperative actions undertaken by groups are at least as common as individual acts undertaken by individuals.

Hey, genius: "Cooperative" implies conscious decisions by each individual. That's the first thing.

Second, just because a groupd of people decide to cooperate does not infuse the group with purposeful acting capability. It is still just a group of individuals.

The first solution advocated is typically not "imposed from above." Your impression on this is just not accurate.

Yeah, maybe not at first. It is not like government bureaucrats get their ideas from divine inspiration...

If you can't parse a proposition as simple as the one in my comment, you shouldn't spout off about how additional propositions "shoot it down."

The fact that one contradicts the other seemed to just fly by you like nothing, Neu. Proposing and imposing are contradictory, and if one follows the other it is clear someone or someones do not believe the first was working.

[Neu Mejican]

OM...

Your just wrong on each point.
Not sure at this point how to help you out.

[Neu Mejican]

Dammit...Joez law...

You're just wrong, that is.

[ScottyB]

Nope, I did not imply the gov is the only or most appropriate body to do anything about GW. I also did not necessarily say anything SHOULD be done about it, given costs/benefits, unintended consequences, etc. I was asking a question of folks I presumed would engage in actual debate.

[Jim Treacher]

Science means shutting up when you're told.

[Old Mexican]

Re: ScottyB,

I don't understand why libertarians cannot wrap their brains around the fact that AGW is clearly happening.

Not even the scientists know that AGW is happening, which is why they changed the name of the phenomenon to "climate change," so anything that happens can become "proof" that AGW is happening.

The debate should be over what (if anything) we should do about it.

The only way to end the debate would be to shoot everybody that does not agre with you. Pol Pot tried it - maybe you're his acolyte.

I thought libertarians were pro-science?

"Pro-science" does NOT mean "pro-believing everything the East Anglia bullshit artists tell you."

[ScottyB]

Holy crap. Hallucinate much? "The only way to end the debate would be to shoot everybody that does not agre with you. Pol Pot tried it - maybe you're his acolyte" how could you possibly read this into anything I wrote.

[T]

I forget. Who is Ron shilling for when he posts this? Big Temperature? The Kochtopus?

[SugarFree]

Big Kochtempus.

[Episiarch]

Big Yawn.

[Joshua Corning]

He owns shares of a natural gas well or wells.

So he is shilling for Little Fart.

[?]

That is statistically unlikely if there is NO trend.

1) No it isn't. Presuming the accuracy and meaningfulness of the data (though that's a dumb thing to do), the trajectory (if you insist) shown by what little we have looks more like noisy piece of some long-wave, low-amplitude cycle, like planets and other large things tend to have going on in and around them (as noted by SCIENCE!), than it does like a "trend."

But also

B) Jesus has burned his way into a statistically unlikely number of shippable food items since eBay was invented. Is Jesus getting hotter, or is maybe something else up?

[MNG]

Why are we looking at this data when we all know that the entire scientific community is possessed by GroupThink and is on the Government Payroll and was in on the HockeyStick Hoax? I mean, all science is on the take, so this is silly. We need to brek out our divining rods and chicken entrails and stop all these appeals to authority!

[T]

Aren't chicken entrails an appeal to authority as well? Prophecy is an appeal to the ultimate authority, is it not?

Of course, chicken entrails are a perfect method of forecasting these days. If you're wrong, you blame the deceased chicken. It was tainted by antibiotics or GMO food or something. Only organic free-range chickens can be expected to be in touch with the universal wisdom of the spheres. Once man pollutes the pure essence of chicken with his filthy technology, their predictions are subject to failure.

[sarcasmic]

But these people can predict the future... it's science!

To deny their ability to to predict the future is to deny science!

THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH and we know this because of science!

Science!

[The Great Sea Otter]

Science damn you!

[ZukRoo]

OK wow that makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Wow.

http://www.privacy-tools.no.tc

[Neu Mejican]

I find the fact that these monthly posts still get ANY comments an amazing phenomenon. I think that you could do a careful content analysis and create an AI commenter that would pass the global warming debate turing test. Someone needs to get on that.

[kinnath]

Tony?

[Neu Mejican]

You could call one the WATTSUP-Bot 3000...and the other the REALCLIMATRON XL

[T]

Well, it would free the rest of us to go snipe at each other on a different topic.

[R C Dean]

For dueling bots, we could include the HOCKEYSTICK XTREME.

[Neu Mejican]

HOCKEYSTICK XTREME vs. JUSTNOISE-O-MATER SUPREME.

[Alex]

Don't know if this article has been mentioned, but here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-dat.....34971.html

So if it is true that the atmosphere is allowing much more heat to escape than the IPCC model's allow for, and if the UN's estimate of the cost of implementing their measures is correct ($78 trillion over 40 years), doesn't it make sense to reevaluate the measures we should take (as well as the science based on incorrect models)?

[Ben Wolf]

Spencer et al unfortunately chose not to publish enough about their methodology for anyone to replicate their findings. The model they present is almost useless due to its extreme simplicity; it doesn't even include ENSO, which, according to Spencer's findings would be initiated and controlled by clouds. THAT we know to be untrue.

It also seems odd that many suggest we simply haven't done enough research (even after sixty years) to determine whether the planet is warming, yet one study from a man who screwed up a decade's worth of satellite data is immediately accepted as proving global warming false.

[R C Dean]

(1) This chart provides no insight at all into whether whatever temperature trend we are in is affected by human activity.

(2) The models that attempt to demonstrate that there is an anthro component to current climate have been shown, repeatedly, to be based on faulty data or faulty code.

(3) The most recent study on heat escape into space is merely the latest, and a potentially very major, challenge to those models.

Its called science: hypotheses are tested against data. Data never loses. Sometimes the hypothesis does.

[Tony]

Faulty code!

There is absolutely no way you will approach this subject without a generous helping of confirmation bias.

[kinnath]

Take the dick out of your mouth. I can't understand what you're saying.

[engineer]

Well, there are all those emails from the guy supporting the code that say the code is total crap.

I would imagine that he's qualified to make that statement.

[sarcasmic]

Yes, there is no way a code writer would be considered for the job without possessing a generous helping of confirmation bias aka faith.

[Ben Wolf]

There is no other known forcing which could be causing the planet to warm. The only explanation which fits the data is anthropogenic CO2

[Ben Wolf]

Spencer's paper is, to be blunt, a joke. His model assumes the ocean has one layer, doesn't acknowledge the hydrological cycle, and is dependent on ten years of observation, whereas other models use over a hundred years of data. Note the obscurity of the journal it was published in, without a single climatologist involved in the review process.

[Ben Wolf]

Oh yes. Note that in Spencer's paper there is NO measure of uncertainty, no error bars, nothing. That's a major red flag in any paper purporting to follow the scientific method.

[Clich? Bandit]

To quote Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' Dumbledor line:

This mirror (the above chart) gives us neither wisdom nor truth.

I was called Erised...get it...Desire spelled backwards...as in a mirror?...get it?

[Clich? Bandit]

to reduce: This chart is meaningless without a larger context.

[Cytotoxic]

Regarding Egypt I think supporting their revolution was probably a mistake.

[Joshua]

We're all gonna burn!

[Nike Dunk High]

thanks

[Amr Salah]

I have the pleasure to brief you on our Data Visualization software
"Trend Compass".

TC is a new concept in viewing statistics & trends in an animated way
by displaying in one chart 5 axis (X, Y, Time, Bubble size & Bubble
color) instead of just the traditional X and Y axis. Discover trends
hidden in spreadsheets. It could be used in analysis, research,
presentation etc. In different business sectors.

Link on Drilling feature (Parent/Child) - Just double-click on any bubble:
http://www.epicsyst.com/test/v2/drilling/

Video on Trend Compass:
youtube.com/watch?v=gzDCGB8xBq4&feature=related

Since we already develop 3D Virtual Reality applications, please find
below a link on a prototype for a new 3D VR Trend Compass application:
youtube.com/watch?v=ueqULRUvikg&feature=related

Regards.

Amr Salah
http://www.epicsyst.com