UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record

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.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markinaustin
January 3, 2011 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?

Thom
January 3, 2011 11:58 am

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?

Don B
January 3, 2011 12:04 pm

Markinaustin 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.

Simon
January 3, 2011 12:05 pm

What’s with the December 2010 plot??

Don B
January 3, 2011 12:07 pm

On second thought, I was apparently thinking November 0.318 while writing 0.381. November looks better using the proper number. Never mind.

Leon Brozyna
January 3, 2011 12:09 pm

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).

Richard111
January 3, 2011 12:11 pm

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?

Eric (skeptic)
January 3, 2011 12:13 pm

The 13 month moving average is about the same as 1998 and it was a less strong El Nino.

Troels Halken
January 3, 2011 12:14 pm

I think the two last datapoints in the graph is oct-nov and he missed december.

January 3, 2011 12:14 pm

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

Dave F
January 3, 2011 12:15 pm

markinaustin:
I wondered that myself.

NeilM
January 3, 2011 12:30 pm

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/

Jan K Andersen
January 3, 2011 12:30 pm

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.

Jeff
January 3, 2011 12:34 pm

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 …

sky
January 3, 2011 12:38 pm

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.

UK John
January 3, 2011 12:52 pm

Blimey! the anecdotal evidence agrees with the scientific “measurement”.

MartinGAtkins
January 3, 2011 12:58 pm

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.

January 3, 2011 1:13 pm
1DandyTroll
January 3, 2011 1:29 pm

‘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

Ron Cram
January 3, 2011 1:35 pm

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?

NK
January 3, 2011 1:40 pm

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.

Matt G
January 3, 2011 1:41 pm

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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
January 3, 2011 1:42 pm

The zombie Intelsat Galaxy-15 telecommunications satellite is brought back to life. From Wikipedia:

On 23 December 2010, Intelsat successfully regained control over the satellite after the Baseband Equipment Command Unit reset following a loss of lock and full discharge of the batteries, reportedly the most critical phases of the recovery of Galaxy 15 have been completed.

Also:

On 27 December 2010, Intelsat reported that the satellite had rebooted as per design and the command unit was responding to commands again. In addition, the satellite had been secured in safe mode and the potential for interference issues from Galaxy 15 had ceased.[1] [2] On 1 January 2011 the satellite was located near 98.0° west.[3][4]

Around this time, December 20 and later, the NOAA-15 satellite begins acting up, as mentioned above.
Coincidence?

Pascvaks
January 3, 2011 1:53 pm

(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?

Eric (skeptic)
January 3, 2011 1:59 pm

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

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights