See also: RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second
Dec. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.18 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.
NEW 30-YEAR BASE PERIOD IMPLEMENTED!
Sorry for yelling like that, but if you have been following our global tropospheric temperature updates every month, you will have to re-calibrate your brains because 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”.
This change from a 20 to a 30 year base period has 2 main impacts:
1) 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. This does NOT affect the long-term trend of the data…it only reflects a change in the zero-level, which is somewhat arbitrary.
2) the 30-year average annual cycle shape will be somewhat different, and more representative of “normal” of the satellite record than with 20 years; as a result, the month-to-month changes in the anomalies might be slightly less “erratic” in appearance. (Some enterprising person should check into that with the old versus new anomaly datasets).
Note that the tropics continue to cool as a result of the La Nina still in progress, and the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. ![]()
I will provide a global sea surface temperature update later today.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.180 0.213 0.147 -0.221
WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?
As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.
THE DISCOVER WEBSITE: NOAA-15 PROBLEMS STARTING IN MID-DECEMBER
For those tracking our daily updates of global temperatures at the Discover website, remember that only 2 “channels” can be trusted for comparing different years to each other, both being the only ones posted there from NASA’s Aqua satellite:
1) only ch. 5 data should be used for tracking tropospheric temperatures,
2) the global-average “sea surface” temperatures are from AMSR-E on Aqua, and should be accurate.
The rest of the channels come from the AMSU on the 12 year old NOAA-15 satellite, WHICH IS NOW EXPERIENCING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MISSING DATA AS OF AROUND DECEMBER 20, 2010. This is why some of you have noted exceptionally large temperature changes in late December. While we wait for NOAA to investigate, it seems like more than coincidence that the NOAA-15 AMSU status report had a December 17 notice that the AMSU scan motor position was being reported incorrectly due to a bit error.
The notice says that problem has been sporadic, but increasing over time as has the amount of missing data I have seen during my processing. At this early stage, I am guessing that the processing software cannot determine which direction the instrument is pointing when making its measurements, and so the data from the radiometer are not being processed.
The daily NOAA-15 AMSU imagery available at the Discover website shows that the data loss is much more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, which suggests that the temperature of the instrument is probably involved in the bit error rate. But at this point, this is all my speculation, based upon my past experience studying how the temperature of these instruments vary throughout the orbit as the solar illumination of the spacecraft varies.
UPDATE from Dr. Spencer(1/3/10, 2:50 p.m. CDT): Graph fixed…it was missing Dec. 2010.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

am i reading the graph wrong? it says “.18 degrees celsius” on the text but seems to be around “.30” on the graph….what am i missing?
Thought the same.
markinaustin says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:49 am
am i reading the graph wrong? it says “.18 degrees celsius” on the text but seems to be around “.30″ on the graph….what am i missing?
Markinaustin @ur momisugly 11:49 am
It looks like the number was plotted as if it were under the old 20 year base period. For example, November also looks plotted high, as if it were the old 0.381, rather than the new, improved 0.273.
What’s with the December 2010 plot??
On second thought, I was apparently thinking November 0.318 while writing 0.381. November looks better using the proper number. Never mind.
It looks like the values posted to the graph stop at November’s reading (+.27°C). It looks like December’s reading hasn’t been added, even though there’s an arrow there (which, btw, covers the +.18°C area).
I am sooo fed up with these temperature quibbles!
Who was it said “correlation is not causation”?
And for the love of Pete, how much correlation do we have?
The 13 month moving average is about the same as 1998 and it was a less strong El Nino.
I think the two last datapoints in the graph is oct-nov and he missed december.
There is a change in normal period, which optically causes confusion.
November with old normal:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Nov_10.gif
December with new normal:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_101.gif
@ur momisugly markinaustin:
I wondered that myself.
Germany declares eco-martial law!!!
EUSRR will be next!!!
P Gosselin reports here…
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/03/germany-passes-energy-tyranny-act-will-force-energy-rationing/
It is a bit confusing
The text use the new 30-year base period, but the graph is based on the old base period so there is a 0.1 degree mismatch.
correlation does not equal causation …
BUT
for there to be casuation there MUST be correlation …
CO2 vs Temperatures over the last 100 years … very poor correlation …
Changing the base-period for the anomalies to the standard 30-yr length is not objectionable. But it would be nice either to recalculate the entire anomaly series from Dec 1978 or to provide readers the monthly offsets from the old base period, so that they could do that themselves. Otherwise, a step-discontinuity is introduced into record.
Blimey! the anecdotal evidence agrees with the scientific “measurement”.
markinaustin says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:49 am
am i reading the graph wrong? it says “.18 degrees celsius” on the text but seems to be around “.30″ on the graph….what am i missing?
Yes, it’s confusing. The graph your looking at is using the old anomaly values which at first glance appear to add about 0.1 too the new values. This will have to be checked on a month by month basis but I think you’ll find that the old value for this month is about 0.28.
I got the +0.18C up @ur momisugly January 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 am….
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/uah-temperature-for-december-of-2010/
‘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”.’
I fully concur that NOAA’s use of the 20 year (1979 – 1998) base period for, oh, some 11+ years become never was traditional even if they treated it as such.
One t’ing, matey, strikes me as utterly hippo poop and that is the correlation with tradition with NOAA’s mythical, but very short (which came only after a lot of nagging), use of the 1981-2010 base period. Maybe, especially, with a graph that says 1979-2010. :p
Eric (Skeptic) brings up a good point. How is the strength of El Nino measured? Do we know for certain the 2010 El Nino was stronger (or possibly stronger but shorter) than the El Nino of 1998? I had always heard the 1998 El Nino was very strong.
So three questions regarding comparing 2010 with 1998 – Which El Nino was stronger? How many months out of each year was the El Nino in effect? Where can we find the data?
OK here’s the deal–
the UAH data — real data that has integrity and transparency– shows some varibility, some cyclical behavior. There is an underlying warming trend sonce 1979, but it is not linear, and basically flatlined over the last 12 years. The UAH data does not validate the GISS/IPCC models and is badly correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels. These are facts. What can be deduced form these facts? who knows? one thing that CAN’T be deduced is that CO2 drives world-wide temps and AGW will have catatrophic consequesnces. That theory is so badly shot to pieces by this data, it is beyond any redeeming credibility.
0.1c difference between 1998 and 2010 is about what this should be comparing the two different strength El Ninos. Therfore this also shows there has been little warming since this period.
The zombie Intelsat Galaxy-15 telecommunications satellite is brought back to life. From Wikipedia:
Also:
Around this time, December 20 and later, the NOAA-15 satellite begins acting up, as mentioned above.
Coincidence?
(SarcOn) I’m sure it would NEVER occure to NASA and NOAA to play games with the data to convince Congress to give them an extra $trillion or so to get some NEW equipment, and just for the old fashioned fun of it drive the Non-Warmers crazy with data thats ‘missing’ some days.(SarcOff)
Or would it?
Ron Cram , sorry I meant to say 1998 was stronger. The data is here: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml