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

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 @ 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.

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

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?

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

@ markinaustin:
I wondered that myself.

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.

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.

‘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

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.

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?

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

Nomination for Climate Quote of the Week:
“So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
😉

Ron Cram says:
January 3, 2011 at 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?
The Multivaraite ENSO Index http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ has the data you are looking for
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
1998 had 7 of 12 values as positive (El Nino) and the other 5 negative (LaNina), 4 of the 7 were strongly positive (greater than 2.0)
2010 is still missing the final value, which is certain to be negative, only the first 5 values are positive, none of them strongly so. It is therefore without doubt that the 1998 El Nino was far stronger and had a far larger effect on the global temperature anomaly than 2010

markinaustin says:
January 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm
ah..well someone fixed it!
now the years are off by 2

Ryan Maue says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm
OH MY, the newest forecast models have the mother of all cold blasts descending from Canada in the next 7-10 days. Record all-time lows would occur if this comes to fruition.
Mr Ryan Maue
I have been reading that the Arctic is warming. If that is true how can this happen? Maybe what I have read is not true?

Matt G says:
January 3, 2011 at 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.
My response: Try again Matt G, because you misplaced the decimal point. The difference is only about 0.014, which is so statistically insignificant, that a coin toss is almost as likely to determine which year was hotter. This is in spite of a much stronger, and longer, El Nino in 1998, and in spite of low solar insolation in 2010.
Furthermore, the 12 month global anomaly really only shows the rate of heat transfer into the troposphere during the El Nino. As typically happens on our planet, the energy balance in the tropics is strongly positive, with net outgoing infrared energy much less than incoming solar radiant energy. Some of the excess heat is convected to higher latitudes where the energy balance is negative; in spite of lower temperatures, the net OLR exceeds the absorbed solar radiation. In an El Nino, more of the heat that builds up in the tropical Pacific waters transfers into the troposphere causing a higher global temperature anomaly. For this reason, the 12-month and shorter lower troposphere anomaly moving averages during El Nino periods are one of the worst measured indicators of planetary heat buildup. The longer term rolling averages, such as 13, 14, 15 and 16 month averages, hit new highs in 2010, as well as 48 month and up moving averages (which span more than one ENSO cycle).
Since 1998 the amount of heat that has been absorbed into heat sinks (oceans, soils, ice caps, glaciers, and ice sheets) exceeds the amount of heat need to raise the global temperature anomaly 0.10 deg C in that timeframe, by roughly a 200 to 1 ratio. There is no doubt at all, that the planet in 2010 is much, much hotter than in 1998.

It is really academic whether 2010 or 1998 is the warmest year. More importantly is whether 2010-2019 will be warmer on average than 2000-2009. It seems there are several interesting possibilities, and regardless of which on comes to pass, we’ll all learn a great deal more about the climate than we know now. Some things I’ll be watching:
1) Will next few weak solar cycles be enough to counter any warming effect from CO2 derived AGW?
2) Will the Arctic seasonal summer ice continue to contract and how might this affect global atmospheric circulation patterns? (currently we have the lowest extent in Arctic Sea ice for this date since accurate satellite records started in 1979).
3) How will the phases of the PDO, NAO, etc. effect the climate over the next decade, and could it be possible that the nature of these longer ocean cycles are being affected by AGW?
4) Will we continue to see evidence of an acceleration in the hydrological cycle globally, with an increase in the frequency of epic floods like Pakistan and Australia? (note: these events in and of themselves are within the bounds of normal weather variations, but it is the increased FREQUENCY of these types of events that would be predicted by GCM’s when factoring in the continued rise in CO2 over the next decade on top of the 40% additional CO2 added since the 1700’s)
All in all, the decade ahead will prove to be a highly interesting for those who enjoy studying the factors influencing the climate, but the fact as to whether or not 2010 was a bit cooler than the record warm year of 1998 is insignificant.

Whilst I understand the reason behind the change of base, changing the base makes comparisons with earlier data sets more difficult. In any event, the chosen base is often artificial, intented only to highlight the trend which the author wishes to highlight. Thus one should be sceptical when considering the chosen base.
If one looks at the UAH plot, the anomaly was fairly flat at about -0.1C between 1979 and 1997 and following the 1998 El Nino, it has remained fairly flat at about +0.2C.
What appears to have happened is that there was a significant step change brought about by the 1998 El Nino which has increased the UAH variation by about 0.3C. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and the reasons behind such step change.

After further research, I have seen the error of my ways – duh!
It seems Aust BoM calculates ENSOI using a formula that results in negative figures being associated with El Nino and positive figures with La Nina.

The temperature dip at the end of December interresting.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/globe-cooled-by-056-c-in-four-days.html
This level results in a large dip, -0.2 C, or something like that, in January if it continues.
(If it drops a lot now I don’t think it’s a repetition of 2007, but more unpleasant but good in the fight against “climate justice” a.k.a. socialism.)

R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
2) Will the Arctic seasonal summer ice continue to contract and how might this affect global atmospheric circulation patterns? (currently we have the lowest extent in Arctic Sea ice for this date since accurate satellite records started in 1979).
Arctic sea ice has generally been recovering since 2007, with a slight blip down for 2010. You are harping now on the fact that ice extent is a little low for this time of year and you were harping the same thing in the early summer. You seen to concentrate on the ice extent at the two points in the cycle where extent means the least and ignore the general recovery in extent and the recovery in multi-year ice that has been going on since 2007.

R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
1) Will next few weak solar cycles be enough to counter any warming effect from CO2 derived AGW?
================================
What, of any consequence, “warming effect from CO2-derived AGW”??
You are breaking logic and reason completely.
You must first establish that such a beast exists in the first place….even with a rhetorical question.
Your question is like:
“Will significant suburban development in the Pacific Northwest have any effect on the populations and natural territory of the Sasquatch?”
You must first prove Sasquatch to exist before you can earn the right to question human’s encroachment on its territory.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

R. Gates says:
January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
3) How will the phases of the PDO, NAO, etc. effect the climate over the next decade, and could it be possible that the nature of these longer ocean cycles are being affected by AGW?
===============================
Get your facts straight, first. (But I know that is too much to ask of a spin doctor).
The NAO is not an “ocean cycle.” It is an atmospheric one.
Listening yo your half-truth littered posts over the months I might make a recommendation:
Have you thought of applying to do support work for a governmental organization such as the EPA, or perhaps the IPCC itself?
Just asking. But I think you would feel right at home at one of those organizations, no doubt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“Matt G says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
0.1C difference between 1998 and 2010 is about what this should be comparing the two different strength El Ninos. Therefore this also shows there has been little warming since this period.”
The UAH difference was 0.013, however the RSS difference was 0.039. See http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/rss-2010-was-second-warmest-after-1998.html#more
Lubos Motl would apparently agree to some extent with what you said based on UAH data, but not based on RSS data. At the above site, he says: “Because the 2009-2010 El Nino was just somewhat weaker than the 1997-1998 El Nino, the predicted annual mean temperature, according to the formula above, is exactly 0.30 °C cooler than the actual observed RSS annual mean temperature. This fact is both true for 1998 and 2010. So if you adjust the RSS temperatures for the El Nino index, there has been no noticeable extra warming or cooling from 1998.”
However let me just for argument sake take your value of 0.1 C warmth over the 12 years at face value. Over 100 years, this would be 0.8 C. When added to the 0.8 C that some say the earth has already warmed, this gives a total of 1.6 C in another 100 years. So IF you feel we should not reach 2 C, at this rate, it would take another 144 years. Would you still say it is urgent that we do something now?

Werner Brozek said…
“The answer is YES….In all five cases, the average anomaly for the last five years was lower than for the last ten years. THIS INCLUDES GISS!”
Hm. Too bad 10 years is not statistically significant.

Werner Brozek,
I too am interested in the direction in which temps are going. I suggest you keep a copy of these graphs just in case the record keepers need to “adjust” over the next few years when the cycles point to a general cooling.
Whatever these graphs show they don’t show what the warmers told us to expect; a gradual increase in step with CO2 emissions. Clearly they don’t.
I also note that R.Gates is claiming an increase in temps in the Artic, where there are few temp stations. He ignores the decrease in temps in the Antarctic of a similar magnitude. Balance? He also refers to the natural cycles hiding the AGW increase. Of course natural cycles were unimportant until recently and now they might be the major driver of climate changes. Who’d -a -thought?

John Kehr says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I got the +0.18C up @ January 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 am….
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/uah-temperature-for-december-of-2010
But you were using the old baseline – so you were quite a bit out (~0.1 deg). Note the ‘drop’ from November to December is only ~0.1 deg not 0.2 deg as you posted.

“richard verney says:
What appears to have happened is that there was a significant step change brought about by the 1998 El Nino which has increased the UAH variation by about 0.3C. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and the reasons behind such step change”
If the amount f heat in the oceans/seas is constant it is very easy to have big swings in sea surface and air temperature, just by changing currents. Place the hot water heat wide and flat and you get global heating, make it narrow and long you get global cooling.
The changes in the ice on the poles suggests that sensible heat is being removed from the southern oceans and placed in the north.
Actually getting a temperature range of plus/minus one degree in the Earths water systems is close to being steady state as one could get, with a max and min of -25 t0 +37 °C

Rob Honeycutt says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:42 am
“That not true. He had 100+ years of temperature reconstructions to base his confusions on.” You had a spelling error, so I fixed it for you.

Rob Honeycutt says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Werner Brozek said…
“The answer is YES….
Hm. Too bad 10 years is not statistically significant.”
Fair enough. However you cannot look at the last ten years in isolation. See page 21 at the following:
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
There are huge ocean cycles that form a sine wave every 60 years. And right now, we are at the point where we were in the 1950s where things were getting cooler for a few decades and some thought there would be an ice age in the 1970s.
P.S. Lawrie: Is there more than one group that does adjustments?

Lawrie Ayres says:
January 4, 2011 at 12:36 am
Whatever these graphs show they don’t show what the warmers told us to expect; a gradual increase in step with CO2 emissions. Clearly they don’t.
NK says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The UAH data does not validate the GISS/IPCC models and is badly correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels. one thing that CAN’T be deduced is that CO2 drives world-wide temps and AGW will have catatrophic consequesnces. (sic)
DaveF says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:06 am
Rob Honeycutt 10:36pm:
10 years’ data of global warming was all Dr Hansen had when he set in motion the train of events that led to the formation of the IPCC.
________________________________________
Ha ha, well, 2 things. 1 – CO2 levels ought to eventually correlate with a stable equilibrium temperature, not induce some odd in-step straight temperature increase with no variation from other causes; and 2 – correlation of CO2 and temperature were never the basis for the theory of GW, it was the physics of it.

David Ball says:
“It should be obvious to anyone that Hansen clearly has an agenda, and it is not a good one.”
That is quite an amazing leap of logic that, seems to me, more fits the conclusion that you want to come to. It seems to me that when you look at all the data sets together, adjusted for their different baselines, you get an astonishing consistent picture. I’m not sure where the agenda is.
Honestly, this is why I love science. Regardless of your agenda, or my agenda, or Hansen’s agenda… the data are going to tell us the truth. I give kudos to all the scientists involved in this issue – Hansen, Santer, Spencer and Christy, alike – because ultimately they are all looking for the same answer. The right answer.

I like also how you avoided answering any of my queries. Please correct in future.

David Ball… If Hansen choses to protest something he believes is wrong or bad that is a personal decision separate from any science he does. You could argue that his political views affect his scientific work and you might be right. But the way science works is that wrong answers are eventually filtered out. They will not fit the data as they unfold. This is the fundamental element of science that has taken modern society to where it is today. Science removes inherent human biases in favor of physical reality.
Whether a scientist could survive winter camping (though many of them do it for a living) or could hammer a nail (though many are master carpenters) has no bearing on the science they produce.
Again, I point you to all four temperature data sets. Here.
Please show me the bias. I honestly do not see it.

David Ball… With regards to your inquiries, you’re setting up a no-win. If Hansen adjusts you ding him. If he doesn’t adjust you’d ding him. Do you apply the same logic to Dr Spencer when he adjusts his data. He obviously has done exactly that in this very post. Changing from a 20 year baseline to a 30 year baseline.
Ultimately the results will play out among the various data sets. Each group has their rationale for managing their data the way they choose. All the groups adjust their data when warranted. If one of them is “cooking the books” in any manner then they are going to be the anomalous data set and suspect. It’s a kind of checks and balances system.
Personally, I trust the scientific method and I trust all these scientists are doing their work as they best see fit. In the end the physical reality of climate will be very clear.

I am impressed that you are so trusting of the fox guarding your henhouse. I’m just not that trusting. It is strange that the scholars I know are a LOT different than the scholars you seem to know. Anyway, it is really funny to see you guys spinning so furiously. You blame the skeptics for the sea change in public opinion, yet it is the hoisting by ones own petard that has been your undoing. The “we predicted this all along” is hilarious !! I welcome the judgement of history, as you do. It would be difficult to accept that one has been made useful, but one of us most assuredly has.

@Honeycut
Sorry, the motives of some of the scientists you mention may be pure. But, Hansen has demonstrated that he has an agenda and if truth inconveniently interferes with his agenda, he will remake the truth to fit his agenda. He hasn’t been a scientist for a long time.

Rob Honeycutt says: January 4, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Rob, you do realize that the ‘adjustments’ Hansen makes are more than changing a baseline reference, he actually changes the data from the past, as well as adjusting current temperatures the wrong direction to compensate for UHI?!
http://i42.tinypic.com/vpx303.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg
Putting Hansen in the same class of scientific integrity as Spencer and Cristy is a joke, I am not familiar enough with Santer’s work to make a relative assessment.

mike g… Honestly, it doesn’t matter if Hansen is evil incarnate itself. If he is wrong, even if he manipulates the data all day long, then ultimately his results will be falsified. That is how the process works. Same goes for Spencer, Lindzen and others. Ultimately what matters is the BIG picture that results from all the work that ALL the scientists do collectively. Irrespective of any political bias, that is where the physical reality of this issue lay.

David Ball says:
“Thank you for posting the data sets, but it surprises me that it did not occur to you that these are monitored here constantly. What you must think of us, … shame.”
Well then, if you are watching the data so closely you should be able to point to me the bias in Hansen’s data. I’m still not seeing it.

Matt G…
The only thing the baseline does is change the zero axis. It doesn’t affect the data in any way. What we have with this composite chart is, overall, four data sets showing virtually exactly the same thing. There is little divergence between the data sets. The satellite sets tend to show higher highs and lower lows I suspect because they are more sensitive to short term fluctuations.
If you add in all the trend lines for the data sets what you see is that GISS and CRU are showing almost identical warming over the total series. RSS shows slightly less warming than those two and then UAH shows less cooling than RSS.
Now, I’m not going to speculate on who is right. Potentially the ALL are correct in that they are all tracking and parsing the data differently.
What we see, though, is that these data all agree in general on warming over the past 30 years. Squint as hard as you want at tiny nuances, it won’t change the overall trend.

mike g says:
“My most fervent hope is there will be no raising of the debt ceiling in congress and that NASA/GISS will be one of the resulting casualties.”
Sounds like you are more in this as a vendetta than for scientific discovery. If Hansen is cooking the books then let him die on his own sword. If he’s not, then it will become obvious as the cards play out over the next decade.