UAH Global temperature for January, up significantly, but other data doesn’t match

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2013: +0.51 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2013 is +0.51 deg. C, a substantial increase from December’s +0.20 deg. C. (click for large version):

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are: 

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2012 1 -0.134 -0.065 -0.203 -0.256
2012 2 -0.135 +0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 3 +0.051 +0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 4 +0.232 +0.351 +0.114 -0.242
2012 5 +0.179 +0.337 +0.021 -0.098
2012 6 +0.235 +0.370 +0.101 -0.019
2012 7 +0.130 +0.256 +0.003 +0.142
2012 8 +0.208 +0.214 +0.202 +0.062
2012 9 +0.339 +0.350 +0.327 +0.153
2012 10 +0.333 +0.306 +0.361 +0.109
2012 11 +0.282 +0.299 +0.265 +0.172
2012 12 +0.206 +0.148 +0.264 +0.138
2013 1 +0.506 +0.553 +0.459 +0.375

Due to the rather large 1-month increase in the temperature anomaly, I double checked the computations, and found that multiple satellites (NOAA-15, NOAA-18, and Aqua) all saw approximately equal levels of warming versus a year ago (January, 2012), so for now I’m accepting the results as real. The most common cause of such warm spikes (when there is no El Nino to blame) is a temporary increase in convective heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. This would suggest that the global average sea surface temperature anomaly might have actually cooled in January, but I have not checked to see if that is the case.

Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies will be updated shortly are available on-line at http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/;

The processed temperature data (updated shortly) is available on-line at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

===============================================================

Anthony: Given Dr. Spencer’s obvious trepidations about the large jump, I have to wonder though, why this result from Dr. Ryan Maue at WeatherBell is so much different? Maue reports that the January 2013 NCEP 2 meter surface temperature reanalysis global temperature anomaly is  +0.087°C compared to the same 1981-2010 base period that Spencer uses for UAH. The CONUS value for January is +0.006°C

Maue_Jan2013_2M_temp

About these ads

69 thoughts on “UAH Global temperature for January, up significantly, but other data doesn’t match

  1. Doesn’t really make sense unless it was that meridional flow we had for nearly the entire month that was taking air up the eastern Pacific from the tropics all the way up to Alaska. California was very dry as the moisture was 150-200 miles off shore and headed nearly due north for the entire month. The flow looks like it might be becoming a bit more zonal now so maybe we will get some rain But there was a lot of tropical moisture being shipped to Alaska in January. It was raining in Alaska with snow levels pretty high at times. But Europe, Asia, and the much of the US were pretty cold in January. Hard to figure this one out.

  2. This is exactly what I would have predicted (did predict) There is a peak every 3.75 years (roughly), this being the tenth peak since 1979 and should peak out about mid this year. It should turn around a head for a new low bottoming out around mid to late 2016. That low should be a deep one – every second trough (7.5 years apart) being extra low. Take a look at the running averages in the Climate4you site with their dip every 7.5 years.

    What it all means – I don’t know but I believe climate inertia is such that when you get 4 X 7.5 year- cycles in a row – you are probably going to get another one.

  3. Credibility = zero
    Something = wrong
    Cold NH based on reports. Decisively cool in my part of SH. Apart from short lived heat wave in Aus… where the heck was it consistently so warm? Can this data be correlated to real life experience? Colour me VERY sceptical…

  4. Having long ago abandoned all but the satellites to reliably measure global average temperature, I’ll not whine when they tell me something I don’t want to hear. Time will tell whether or not this is a momentary blip (I like the oceans coughing up heat theory), but for now, at least, I think it is what it is. Anyone who regularly visits the ASMU temperature site could see this one coming all month long.

  5. I hope the alarmists jump on this, anything that highlights their disconnection from reality is always welcome. It certainly hasn’t beem warm here in the UK!

  6. Re my posting at 11:13 – I will add that it is best to remove the 60 year sinusoidal cycle first which peaked late 2008 with an amplitude of plus or minus just under 0.2 degrees C.

    Wish i could send you a graph but its technically beyond me.

    Cheers

  7. Tisdale is reporting in his preliminary sea surface temperatures for January (doesn’t have the final published yet as of right now) that the oceans cooled significantly in January which would be consistent with what Dr. Spencer said. The preliminary monthly graph is here:

    But that is shy some data yet. The final report should be published within a week if he keeps to his usual pattern.

  8. GabrielHBay says: February 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    “Apart from short lived heat wave in Aus… where the heck was it consistently so warm?”

    I did a very early TempLS run. It was up about 0.15°C, only partly recovering the big drop in December, due to cold in Russia and NW N America.. The January hot places were NW N America, Central Asia and Australia. But there is more data to come yet.

  9. I trust the satellite data at least for short term changes like this. Longer term (decades) there may be unrecognized biases, despite Dr Spencer’s and others best efforts.

    This is also contrary to the pattern of the last 2 years when winter global anomalies reduced in winter to close to or below zero. But look at Dr Spencer graph above and a winter anomaly peak was the norm prior to the last 2 years.

    I agree with Dr Spencer that it relates to ocean heat transport to the land via evaporation and precipitation. Remember, increased water vapour increases the heat capacity of air and thus reduces temperatures (all else being equal).

    BTW, the ‘normal’ winter anomaly peak is due to reduced aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds. Which suggests aerosols increased in the previous 2 years and have now returned to their longer term downward trend. Which further suggest increased ocean evaporation has rained out the aerosol increase of the last 2 years.

  10. If any of you commenting think Spencer or Christy would intentionally bias their data set warm you are bats#!t. Mistakes can be made, sure. But accusing either of these two of peddling alarmism is outlandish and flat-out wrong.

  11. I think it makes sense that the LT warms if earth cools.
    There are a few ways that earth can cool or warm.
    - More/less TSI
    -More/less clouds.
    -More/less water vapour
    -More/less CO2.
    -Higher/lower temperarture in parts of atmosphere that irradiate directly out to space.

    The only way that earth looses it’s energy is through IR so if earth is going to cool it has to emit more IR to space than the energy it absorbes from the sun.

    Without knowing exactly how much IR that is radiated from anywhere from the surface to the top of the atmosphere I think I have read that the main part of IR radiated back out to space is higher up in the atmosphere. In that case the one way for surface to cool is to warm the amtosphere and it may be that process that UAH is detecting since it do not meassure surface temperatures.. Warmer molecules in the part of atmosphere that irradiate directly out to space will increase earths energy loss and give earth a nagtive energy balance as long as this condition occur.

  12. Sanity check. The Global troposphere can’t (and does not) change temperature by such a large amount instantaneously.
    The measurement methodology/processing might be flawed, but more likely you are seeing a plot of baseline noise with excess “zooming in” ie brownian artifacts of the display.
    Any analytical measurement value MUST show both a value and some kind of error bar.
    What you are seeing in that plot is high frequency noise that does not occur in reality. Try “zooming out” the Y-axis and adding realistic error correction.
    For example

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/to:1980/plot/rss-land/plot/uah-land

    shows the same data with a different graphical representation.

  13. I was going to write something sarcastic in the style of the idiotic alarmists of “more proof” … but its so long since I’ve heard them that I’ve literally forgotten what they say.

  14. As someone who lives in “NW N America” I can confirm that most of January was more pleasant than most years. We had the less usual situation where north winds were warm, as the tropical flow tracked north up the coast, then took a hard 180 degree right somewhere around Alaska and came back down this side of the Rockies.

    Unlike some people, though, I was far from alarmed, and actually enjoy a January day that isn’t too cold to breathe. Christmas time was very, very cold. My lake still has completely average ice thickness.

    Also, in my eyes this still essentially renders the entire exercise of a “global average temperature” as completely useless, as I’ve been saying for years. Atmospheric temperature is something like 1/600th of the climate system anyway. If you click over to http://www.wx.ca and click the “Almanac” tab you can see the daily averages were above mean (but nowhere near records), with a few days when the flow faltered and we dropped back to the icebox.

  15. Given that Dr Ryan Maue is using a re-analysis method that is not publicly available for audit as far as I can discover, surely the discrepancy between the Weatherbell adjusted result and all the other measurements, including Dr Spencer’s, should cast the doubt on the Weatherbell claim given the weight of evidence.

  16. This issue has now got nothing to do with science. If it ever did.

    It is about power.

    Given that reality has failed to support this programme, it is very obvious that the proponents of this are increasingly ready to do anything to at all to achieve what they want.

    If they can possibly interfere with basic measurements and data they will.

    It is foolish to the point of suicide to not see this, and to naively believe that all the participants in this are at heart “decent”.

    They are not.

    All of human history will tell you that.

  17. This months data shows record heat for the state of the ENSO cycle. Could this record heat be caused by Global Warming? How hot will it get the next time there is an El Nino?

  18. UAH is run by John Christy & Roy Spencer – both of whom are impeccable scientists. Anyone here who would question their motives or competance should take a step back and reconsidre their own motives. The data is what it is. One month is just noise. Wait and see.

  19. My understanding is that Dr. Maue uses the data put into the GFS model. In other words, it is not from a model run; rather it is the “starting point.” One would hope the data put into the model was not “modeled” but rather was the actual facts, gathered from all over the world, (though of course one never knows, these days.)

    By using this data it is possible for Dr. Maue to not merely get an average for the entire month, but to get daily and even hourly read-outs of the average 2m temperatures of the planet.

    What fascinates me is that these numbers do vary quite a bit, on a daily and even hourly basis. The “average” is not a temperature that slowly changes over a period of time, but rather is amazingly responsive. You might even call it “lively.”

    In any case, when the world’s average temperature can vary half a degree in a matter of days, it is hard to worry so much about it varying half a degree over thirty years.

  20. Claude Harvey says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:18 pm
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    x2.

    It was not what I was expecting given the winter that I have just lived through, but certainly it was what the UAH global data was pointing at throughout the last month. Always dangeous to have preconceptions and let these cloud your judgment and interpretation of data.

    The observed increase is most likely a consequence of the oceans cooling. It is only ocean temperature that should concern us given that that it is the oceans that drive the climate, ocean temperature is a true metric of energy and the latent heat content of the oceans dwarves the latent heat content of the atmosphere. Look at the dog, not the tail since it is the dog that wags the tail, not the other way around..

  21. For individual readers’ self-reflection…

    Would you have been similarly skeptical of this particular data point if it had been a decline in temperature of similar magnitude? Or would you have accepted it without another thought?

    It’s easy to point out the confirmation bias of others, but much more difficult to identify it in our own thinking.

  22. Anthony,

    you say – quote: “The most common cause of such warm spikes (when there is no El Nino to blame) is a temporary increase in convective heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. This would suggest that the global average sea surface temperature anomaly might have actually cooled in January, but I have not checked to see if that is the case.” – unquote.

    That is correct. Folowing your “Sea Ice Page” very closely – i.e. twice a day, regularly – I noticed that recently, some areas of the the Gulf Stream’s northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, have SIGNIFICANTLY cooled over the past few weeks: From above 8 degrees centigrade to approx. 6 degrees centigrade, in it’s warmest areas, which can be seen HERE:

  23. Can anyone confirm this thought: -

    Basic physics half remembered would suggest, that as we’ve had some very cold temperatures in areas we haven’t recently this winter, this would “encourage” warmth in the oceans to be released warming the atmosphere temporarily until that heat radiates away, again as air temperatures cool, this again would encourage warmth in the oceans to be released. Eventually leading to an over all cooling, but with temperature jumps as certain thresholds are reached?

  24. @- jc
    “Given that reality has failed to support this programme, it is very obvious that the proponents of this are increasingly ready to do anything to at all to achieve what they want.
    If they can possibly interfere with basic measurements and data they will.”

    It is unclear which side, {or both?} this indictment applies to. Reality seems to be warming.
    Several different methods give a consistent result. Another unknown method gives a result that conforms to the preferences of the people that produced it. Which do you think are interfering with the basic measurements, Dr Roy Spencer…. Or Weatherbell?

    @-”It is foolish to the point of suicide to not see this, and to naively believe that all the participants in this are at heart “decent”.
    They are not.
    All of human history will tell you that.”

    Indeed.
    The history of motivated rejection of scientifically identified dangers. CFCs, asbestos, lead, OPs, particulates, SOx… And of course tobbaco all indicate the lack of decency on the part of those trying to avoid the implications of science on these subjects.

  25. Temperature anomalies resolved to 0,01° to 0.0001° and no error bars? Maybe the satellites will to 0.001°, but I’m always amazed by how well climate scientists measure things.

  26. A Crooks says:

    February 5, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    This is exactly what I would have predicted (did predict) There is a peak every 3.75 years (roughly),

    Could be due to a combination of the orbital positions of mars and venus!

  27. Nick Stokes says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:50 pm
    The January hot places were NW N America, Central Asia and Australia

    No mention of the much Colder than usual Northern & Southern Europe, the rest of Asia including Japan, N E N America, Mexico etc.
    I would have thought that they would easily have balanced out any of the hot places.

  28. Kind of an unusual December and January.

    On Land and in the atmosphere that is.

    Ocean sea surface temperatures seem to be following the typical pattern expected as we transition from a short 2012 El Nino to the current La Nina conditions.

    HadSST3 was down -0.06C in December and Oiv2 SSTs are down -0.05C in January. More-or-less lagging behind the changes in the ENSO which peaked last August at +0.73C and is down to -0.5C now.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.0.0/HadSST3_monthly_globe_ts.txt

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

    On Land, Crutemp4 fell by an amazing -0.62C in December down to 0.233C. There is larger variability on Land but this is an unexpectedly large drop. (northern Asia/Russia were the most below normal).

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/CRUTEM.4.1.1.0.global_n+s_monthly

    The atmosphere was more-or-less following the ENSO as well until January’s large increase. Not too much to explain it There was a large Sudden Stratospheric Warming event at the north pole. This usually makes the atmosphere warmer in the far north (colder in some other location like northern Asia/Russia) but it usually does not impact the rest of the globe and there is a least one of these events each winter so should be expected.

    I sometimes think of the ENSO’s impact on global temperatures by how much the out-going long-wave radiation (OLR) varies at the International Dateline. This is one of the planet’s biggest thermostats and the variability here (lagging 3 months behind the ENSO) is truly massive. +/- 50 Watts/m2 which would dwarf the variability of any other place on the planet.

    When the trendline in this chart is strongly Yellow, the planet is cooling. When it is Blue, the planet is warming. It is based on how the ENSO impacts the formation of clouds at the International Dateline and whether the warm equatorial Pacific ocean energy is simply radiated fast to space because there are no clouds to hold it in or whether there is lots of clouds here holding the heat in. This is how the ENSO impacts global temperatures the way it does. This January and into February, there is lots of clouds holding the heat in (Blue) – while we should be transitioning now to (Yellow) and little cloud here. Not right now.

    That is my convoluted explanation.

  29. bw says:
    February 6, 2013 at 1:55 am
    “What you are seeing in that plot is high frequency noise that does not occur in reality.”

    What you say may be partly true, there are allways meassurement/methodology noice mixed up with natural noice and sometimes they are both in same phase and will cause an extra large change. If you are unlucky you get a maximum natural noice together with maximum meassurement noice and which will cause an extra large spike.
    Hopefully the equipment has much smaller meassurement noice than the natural anomaly noice thus it will just have a minor impact on the final calculated value.

    As for the actual change it fits in with all other month to month changes if you compare them in a histogram, it is just rare with such large changes. It is the 4th largest month to month change for UAH.

    This offcourse does not tell wether the change is an artefact or is real, just that it is not an abnormal value.

  30. Who lives at the global average address? And if those that do are finding things a little warm for their liking couldn’t the hat be passed around to raise enough money for them to buy a ticket out of there?

  31. The January data are clearly wrong. Massive aerial cooling of both the Tropical and Non Tropical
    Eastern Pacific Ocean ensued throughout January. Very distrustful of any “satellite data” now.

  32. Nick Stokes says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:50 pm
    The January hot places were NW N America, Central Asia and Australia

    I can confirm that in the SE US, this winter’s weather has been glorious. Viva la warming!

  33. @ izen

    It is clear from the tone of your comment taken as a whole that you are incapable of viewing this issue and any other in all likelihood in terms other than “sides”. This is tribalism. This is primitive.

    To put it in your terms, the side is called reality.

    Reality of warming or cooling is not in any measurements of any sort.

    These are precisely that, measurements.

    Measurements can be faulty.
    .
    This can be the case because they are intentionally corrupted.

    Your last paragraph shows you clearly for what you are.

    Your conflation of the reliability of the measurement of reality, and confidence in that, with the rejection of “scientifically identified dangers” shows all.

    On the one hand you propose that there is in fact a history of those with a “lack of decency” “trying to avoid the implications of science”.

    On the other, you plainly reject any possibility that any reason for doubt as to the actual basis – measurements of reality – for claiming legitimacy for any proposition is itself valid.

    It is not debatable that vast mounts of money, and the validation of those with certain ideologies which compel them to a certain result and course of action (such as you), are directed at and depend upon this issue.

    Simple question.

    If it is true, as you apparently accept at least when it suits your case in the issues you mentioned, that there are those who willfully attempt to distort the perception of reality for their own gain, is it not only possible but very likely that they will attempt to interfere with a process of understanding in any way they effectively can?

    Yes or no is all that is required.

  34. According to my look at Environment Canada data there was a big jump from Dec to Jan in Canada, but Jan 2013 was colder than Jan 2012. So I am wondering if UAH had a some sort of problem.

    2012 Jan

    2013 Jan

    Dec 2012

    What few stations there are that EC calculates anomalies for, the arctic was slightly colder than normal in Jan 2013.

  35. An addition to my earlier comment as to the reliability of measurements.

    I am not implying at at all that Christy and/or Spencer are involved or even could be involved with the falsification of measurements.

    They don’t have control of the application of the technologies required for measurements. The media in only the past week has carried stories of computer programmes being corrupted in major companies. This is a commonplace in terms of the occurence and reach of execution. It is hard to see why readings from any satellite that exists should be exempt.

  36. The latest on six different data sets.

    Since it is February, I will do things a bit differently than the rest of the year. I will give the latest anomaly I have and indicate its relative ranking if that anomaly were to stay that way for all of 2013. (Of course it won’t.)

    The UAH anomaly for January was 0.506. (It jumped from 0.206 in December.) This would rank 1st. (1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.

    The GISS anomaly for December was 0.44. This would rank 15th.

    The Hadcrut3 anomaly for December was 0.233, This would rank 19th.

    The sea surface anomaly for December was 0.342. This would rank 8th.

    The RSS anomaly for January was 0.442. (It jumped from 0.101 in December.) This would rank 3rd.

    The Hadcrut4 anomaly for December was 0.269. This would rank 19th.

    The new UAH is not on WFT yet, but with the January value for RSS, the slope is 0 for 16 years and 1 month from January 1, 1997 to January 31, 2013.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    For the complete statistics on these 6 data sets for 2012, see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/04/the-yearly-lukewarm-report/#comment-1216324

  37. Ric Werme says:
    February 5, 2013 at 10:46 pm
    ….Two things I noted – the stratospheric warming event from a couple weeks ago to support for Spencer’s suggestion of heat from the ocean, see Bob Tisdale’s preliminary report at

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/preliminary-january-2013-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Dr Nir Shaviv’s idea The oceans as a calorimeter does a good job of coupling everything together. We already know the oceans temperatures rule the atmosphere and not the other way round.

    A calorimeter is a device which measures the amount of heat given off in a chemical or physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth’s oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle….

    One of the raging debates in the climate community relates to the question of whether there is any mechanism amplifying solar activity. That is, are the solar synchronized climatic variations that we see (e.g., take a look at fig. 1 here) due to changes of just the solar irradiance, or, are they due to some effect which amplifies the solar-climate link. In particular, is there an amplification of some non-thermal component of the sun? (e.g., UV, solar magnetic field, solar wind or others which have much larger variations than the 0.1% variations of the solar irradiance). This question has interesting repercussions to the question of global warming, which is why the debate is so fierce.

    If only solar irradiance is the cause of the solar-related climate variations, it would imply that the small solar variations cause large temperature variations on Earth, and therefore that Earth has a very sensitive climate. If on the other hand there is some amplification mechanism, it would imply that solar variations induce much larger variations in the radiative budget, and that the observed temperature variations can therefore be explained with a smaller climate sensitivity…

    is there a direct record which measures the heat flux going into the climate system? The answer is that over the 11-year solar cycle, a large fraction of the flux entering the climate system goes into the oceans. However, because of the high heat capacity of the oceans, this heat content doesn’t change the ocean temperature by much….

    It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived….

    The ocean heat content, is a direct measurement of the energy stored in the oceans….

    Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations.….

    So what does it mean?

    First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don’t expect this result to make any difference!

    Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation.

    Note that the most reasonable explanation to the cloud variations is that of the cosmic ray cloud link. By now there are many independent lines of evidence showing its existence (e.g., for a not so recent summary take a look <here ). That is, the cloud cover variations are controlled by an external lever, which itself is affected by solar activity…..

    Graph fig 2: Sea Level vs. Solar Activity

    Paper: Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989

    Another paper by a bunch of engineers: Alexander, WJR, Bailey, F., Bredenkamp, DB, van der Merwe, A., and Willemse, N. 2007 Linkages between solar activity, climate, predictability and water resource development. J. South African Institution Civil Engineering Vol. 49, July, pp 32-44 Paper 649. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2643

    I am going to add Dr. Shaviv’s rebuttal to Dr Svalgaard criticism that he “tortured the data” used for the figure 2 graph. (Comment)

    The rest of the comments on Sciencebits are also interesting.

    Torquemada – the data torturer
    Yes, I pulled finger nails until the data said “I give up, I give up!”

    o.k., now seriously.

    In order to get the cleanest data I used the 24 tide gauges chosen by Douglas 1997 for different stringent criteria (e.g., in geologically stable locations, long records, consistent with other gauges nearby, etc). I used someone else’s tide gauges so that I could not be accused of cherry picking.

    Secondly, because I am not interested in long term trends, but I am interested in short term derivatives, I treated the data differently than what other people do. Instead of averaging the station heights and then differentiating, I first differentiated the data for each station and then added the derivatives. The reason is that this way I avoid getting spurious jumps from the start or end of individual station data. Because it can give rise to spurious long term trends and because I don’t care about long term trends, I simply removed any linear trend from the data.

    In the graph from 1870 that Lief Svalgaard points to, one cannot see the 11-year signal because the latter only amounts to a few cm amplitude (3.5 mm/yr!). It obviously drowns in the annual noise or the long term trends in Leif’s particular graph. Note that at least over the past 50 years, Holgate sees consistently the same 11-year variations in the data (e.g., referenced here). Of course, because he uses a lot of lower quality stations (177) and/or is not careful to first differentiate and then add the tidal gauge data, he sees somewhat different variations before 1950, than what I find. (Of course, this is not a problem because he does not care about 11-year variations). Anyway, did Holgate torture his data too?

    Oh, and the fact that Lean 2000 is used for the TSI is totally meaningless. The correlation with any signal synchronized with the 11-year solar cycle would give the same result. Note that I removed any long term trends from the tide data and from the solar proxies (whether TSI or cosmic rays).

  38. @- jc
    “I am not implying at at all that Christy and/or Spencer are involved or even could be involved with the falsification of measurements.
    They don’t have control of the application of the technologies required for measurements. The media in only the past week has carried stories of computer programmes being corrupted in major companies. This is a commonplace in terms of the occurence and reach of execution. It is hard to see why readings from any satellite that exists should be exempt.”

    Wonderful! A new conspiracy theory, its not scientists like Spencer and Christy who are corrupting the measurements, it is all done by computer programmes… Skynet perhaps?

    When several independent methods of measurement all show the same basic results… Well either that IS a reliable indicator of reality or you have to posit a truly outlandish conspiracy to enable the motivated rejection of reality.

  39. Russ R. says:
    February 6, 2013 at 3:51 am

    For individual readers’ self-reflection…

    Would you have been similarly skeptical of this particular data point if it had been a decline in temperature of similar magnitude? Or would you have accepted it without another thought?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Depends on the author. Dr. Spencer has shown by his actions that he doesn’t play games with the data. Hansen’s actions speak for themselves An original graph from 1975

  40. A C Osborn says:
    February 6, 2013 at 4:34 am

    Nick Stokes says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:50 pm
    The January hot places were NW N America, Central Asia and Australia

    No mention of the much Colder than usual Northern & Southern Europe, the rest of Asia including Japan, N E N America, Mexico etc.
    I would have thought that they would easily have balanced out any of the hot places.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are forgetting that the oceans are 70% of the earth surface and Bob Tisdales’s PRELIMINARY January 2013 Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Update show the oceans cooled over the last five months. This means they were dumping heat to somewhere and the most likely place is into the atmosphere.

    There is however a slight uptick showing in the weekly data.

  41. Michael Sweet

    This months data shows record heat for the state of the ENSO cycle. Could this record heat be caused by Global Warming? How hot will it get the next time there is an El Nino?

    And in December, temperatures were at a 10 year low. It’s funny how global warming seems to have started on 1st January

  42. At first I thought the arctic data looked so warm, something had to be wrong. But Spencer’s data jives with DMI data. It appears the arctic WAS that much above normal.

    We really need to see some cooling as a result of the low solar activity, and soon, or we can kiss that theory goodbye….

  43. Bob says:
    February 6, 2013 at 4:31 am

    Temperature anomalies resolved to 0,01° to 0.0001° and no error bars? Maybe the satellites will to 0.001°, but I’m always amazed by how well climate scientists measure things.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If you want the error analysis or other info go to Dr. Spencer’s blog and ask him for it.

  44. izen says:
    February 6, 2013 at 8:20 am

    …Wonderful! A new conspiracy theory, its not scientists like Spencer and Christy who are corrupting the measurements, it is all done by computer programmes… Skynet perhaps?…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not a ” conspiracy theory,” at all a PROVEN FACT if you had even bothered to look into it.

    Hackers Linked to China’s Army Seen From EU to D.C.

    …Observed for years by U.S. intelligence, which dubbed it Byzantine Candor, the team of hackers also is known in security circles as the Comment group for its trademark of infiltrating computers using hidden webpage computer code known as “comments.”

    During almost two months of monitoring last year, the researchers say they were struck by the sheer scale of the hackers’ work as data bled from one victim after the next: from oilfield services leader Halliburton Co. (HAL) to Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLP; from a Canadian magistrate involved in a sensitive China extradition case to Kolkata-based tobacco and technology conglomerate ITC Ltd. (ITC)…

    “What the general public hears about — stolen credit card numbers, somebody hacked LinkedIn (LNKD) — that’s the tip of the iceberg, the unclassified stuff,” said Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director of the FBI in charge of the agency’s cyber division until leaving earlier this year. “I’ve been circling the iceberg in a submarine. This is the biggest vacuuming up of U.S. proprietary data that we’ve ever seen. It’s a machine.”…

    So yes there is hacking and in a big way. Even Oak Ridge Labs got hacked Apr 20, 2011 got hit.

    And another time just recently.

    ANONYMOUS Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Weather.gov Hacked
    More than 48hrs on from the first attacks for 5, Nov [2012] the anonymous hacktivist are still pushing out leaked data from breached websites….

    They have also released a very small dump of shall accounts on the weather.gov server

    What do you want Reality to personally come knock on your door and bite you on the butt before you will actually look at the information and check it out?

  45. MattN says:
    February 6, 2013 at 9:15 am

    No, I think it was simply due to the configuration of wind currents. There was a LOT of warm air being pulled nearly due North out of the tropical Pacific into the region of Alaska. The “Pineapple Express” that often pulls moisture into California was bringing it into Anchorage, instead. That’s just one example. The jets were very “loopy” in January.

  46. The uptick in the UAH temp anomaly would be good news except:

    1) it has propaganda value for alarmists who want to waste money on a non-problem
    2) it’s probably temporary
    3) January nights certainly didn’t feel any warmer here in Silicon Valley! :-)

  47. In many ways this is a boon to skeptics. At least my own view. No one saw this coming. This highlights the uncertainty of our atmospheric systems. Clearly, we can’t even predict next month’s temperatures … how can we predict them a 100 years from now?

    Also keep in mind this is the mid-troposphere and not the surface. That may be why Maue’s numbers are different.

  48. A Crooks says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:13 pm
    This is exactly what I would have predicted (did predict) There is a peak every 3.75 years (roughly), this being the tenth peak since 1979 and should peak out about mid this year. It should turn around a head for a new low bottoming out around mid to late 2016. That low should be a deep one – every second trough (7.5 years apart) being extra low. Take a look at the running averages in the Climate4you site with their dip every 7.5 years.

    What it all means – I don’t know but I believe climate inertia is such that when you get 4 X 7.5 year- cycles in a row – you are probably going to get another one.

    I have also noticed that troposphere and SST appear to move in approximately 8 year “jumps” and that we are about at the peak of the current jump. This is evident over all the instrumental record of about 40 years.

  49. GHGs affect retained energy. Temperature is not energy. If the reading is proved correct, then I suspect it is ocean heat warming the lower tropo.

  50. Well it’s about time. Laws of partial pressure were about to be violated. pH2O in the oceans has been climbing since 1997 while the flatlining atmosphere has doggedly refused to recieve the vapor. The wonder is why?

  51. As a hobby, I run a linear regression comparing the 600 mb (AQUA channel 5) anomaly versus the UAH monthly anomaly. It uses the preceding 12 months of data. The correlation is over 0.95. The regression was indicating a January anomaly of 0.44, so I wasn’t surprised at the UAH monthly anomaly number. The first 4 days of February are similar to the month of January, as far as the anomaly goes.

    The concept of surface and atmospheric anomalies going their separate ways is “interesting”, to quote Mr Spock of the original Star Trek series.

  52. @izen Feb 6, 2013 8.20am

    Refer to
    @Gail Combs Feb6, 2013 8.30am.

    A pointless reference for you I do realize.

    I am not an experienced blogger. One thing I have noticed as a consumer however is the wonderful consistency shown by those of your generic type. The actual mechanisms do vary slightly according to situation – an admirable diversity of nervous responses totaling perhaps 7 or 8 , quite an achievement given the rudimentary character of the being so abundantly on display.

    Ignoring the point at hand and refusing to respond to it, then seeking to introduce some extraneous issue often expressed in a highly coloured way – watch that you don’t exceed the capacity of your nervous system – is THE basic technique. I’m being overly generous here – feel gratified? – since of course a Pavlov’s Dog level of response cannot presume to the status of technique.

    So, to help you in your development towards a being of a more advanced sort (in the ambitious speculation that your condition of being is not entirely organic) why don’t you attempt to focus your nervous system on what many on this site might describe as “answering the question”.

    Your capacity to comprehend it is a fearsome existential proposition, however the mechanism for answering yes/no is not dissimilar to that on/off switch that is required in a primitive life form, compelled for example to move towards the light.

    That part surely you can manage.

  53. The bumps in temperatures from December to January were abnormal, but not extraordinary. The 0.3 C global rise tied for third largest month-to-month temperature rise in the past 34+ years. June-July 2009 was #1 at +0.35.

    The +0.4 C increase in the Northern Hemisphere tied for the fourth largest one-month increase. Dec.-Jan. ’09-’10 was #1 at +0.46. In the NH, three of the top four one month jumps were between December and January.

Comments are closed.