Second warmest January in past 35
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
January temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
Tropics: +0.38 C (about 0.68 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January.
December temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.21 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.14 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 Feb. 6, 2013:
Globally, January 2013 was the second warmest January among the past 35, with an annual global average temperature that was 0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, 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. January 2010 was the warmest January, while January 1998 is now pushed to third warmest.
Compared to seasonal norms, over the past month the coldest area on the globe was east central Russia near the town of Nyagan, where temperatures for the month averaged as much as 2.51 C (about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the “warmest” area on the globe in January was the Norwegian arctic archipelago of Svalbard, which is north of Norway and east of Greenland. Temperatures there averaged 4.1 C (about 7.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for January.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
That’s OK. We just need to understand what it means, but let’s not descend into conspiracies. That would demean us and the way we do things.
Where are the error margins, where are the instrument calibration data? What a load of garbage – +/-0.4 Deg C is just NOISE!
Both Elko, NV and Salt Lake City, NV had departures of greater than -10 F for the month of January, a very cold month yet only get a -.5 departure from Satellite derived data?
based on anecdotal evidence, I have to strongly disagree. According to the graphic provided, southern Ontario, where I live, was one of the warmer spots. I have built a backyard ice rink every winter for the last 6 years. This was the first January in which temperatures were so consistently cold, I was able to literally spray on the water from one end to the other, and by the time I reached the end of the rink, the starting point was frozen solid, allowing me to apply multiple layers of ice in a single flooding. I’ve been loving how cold this January has been. And while we did get two very warm thaws, this has not been out of the ordinary, as I have experienced several January thaws every year. This was the first year in which I was able to build up enough thickness that the thaws didn’t result in the rink needing to be shut down for days afterwards. What are the chances they’re adjusting the data before releasing?
i see SoCal was supposed to be colder than usual, but other than one short patch, it’s been average to delightfully warm at our house, as seen here: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?wfo=lox
We had 3 straight weeks of under -2C in January…. this is Easten Oregon. I know it was
warmer in the Eastern US, but not every where.. something’s not quite right here…
I do not see the value is using temperature “anomalies”?
to have an anomaly requires you KNOW the proper baseline to be varying away from…….there is no single baseline of the “correct climate” so there CANT be an baseline to measure anomalies from in the first place…….using the term anomaly assumes there is a “normal” stable climate and that has never existed yet on this planet.
Something tells me there is going to be a lot more to this anomally. I can’t wait. Here in Tucson, we hit 15 degrees F, I believe on January 23rd, which the last time that happened was 2 years ago. We have had a cold January once again similar to 2010. Anecdotal yes, but sometimes anedotes are right.
Why are trends of landbased measurements higher for land than for sea surface since the 1980s ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:10/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1900/mean:10
(especially for the northern hemisphere)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/mean:10/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1900/mean:10
This appears to be illogical, because it did not happen during earlier increases such as 1915-1942.
And it does not happen in satellite products
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:10/plot/uah-land/mean:10
When the temperature of the “Lower Troposphere” is measured, I think it includes the level of my backyard themometer, but does it also include air above? If so, how far above? Is it the lowest 100 feet? 1000 feet? I ask because some of these arctic air masses are remarkably thin. The GFS computer busts on forecasted nighttime lows on a regular basis, because the cold “sneaks under its radar.”
Interesting graphic. I see the general Phoenix area is listed as about 0 degrees difference from normal, yet the utility company reported it as being 4 degrees below last year, which wasn’t “average,” either. I guess the atmosphere from, say, about 500 meters up must have been WAY warmer than normal.
The best skeptical position on these numbers is not to attack those who put them together but to put the numbers in perspective. No one knows what physical processes the numbers measure and it is the physical processes that are important and that should interest us. This point is clear in many comments. For example, some have attempted to explain the numbers as the result of unusual moisture moving up the US west coast to Alaska. But there is no science that ties these numbers to well understood physical processes. The important point for skeptics to hold dear is that these numbers are not the reality but one measure of something that remains poorly understood.
Discussing the numbers and the methods used to assemble them is important. Our best guesses about the underlying physical processes are important. Solving the various puzzles that the numbers present is important. All of it is very interesting. However, until there are vast improvements in the physical science there will be no clear connection between the numbers and reality.
Where are the error margins, where are the instrument calibration data? What a load of garbage – +/-0.4 Deg C is just NOISE!
###########
for calibration see the pages provided by the satellite teams involved. google is your friend. First you need to go to Roys page and find the platform he uses.( eg MSU or AMSU ) then go to page for that platform. There you will find a pile of documents showing the calibration One issue that Roy has to deal with is drift.
If you reject Roy because you dont beleive. once you see the calibration data and invent another objection take care. That is a form of conspiritorial ideation.
The right way to do this is to LOOK for the calibration data FIRST. Then if you find something, report it.
here are some examples of what you can find in short order since google is your friend.
perhaps “Just the facts” will do an information page for instrument calibration.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/calibration.html
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/documentation/amsu_instrument_guide.shtml
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=536029&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D536029
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016205/abstract
http://cics.umd.edu/AMSU-CDR/documentation_files/AMSU_CDR_Progress_Report-Apr_2012.pdf
caleb,
lower troposphere is around 14000 feet altitude, at 600 mbar.
The surface appears to have lost heat to the lower troposphere. No controdiction to low anomalies in surface data.
caleb
“When the temperature of the “Lower Troposphere” is measured, I think it includes the level of my backyard themometer, but does it also include air above? If so, how far above? Is it the lowest 100 feet? 1000 feet? I ask because some of these arctic air masses are remarkably thin.”
The product estimates the temperature of the atomosphere in the Lower Troposphere.
See the channel descriptions for the altitude covered.
The relationship between the temperature at 2m and the temperature miles above the surface is in fact rocket science, so take some care.
If you go into the UAH website, you will find, in what I think would be defined as the upper troposphere, that the temperature is lower than in recent years.
I am sure it means something, but I don’t know what.
it still does not make sense
all other data sets show a down trend?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
‘Theo Goodwin says:
February 6, 2013 at 11:11
The best skeptical position on these numbers is not to attack those who put them together but to put the numbers in perspective. No one knows what physical processes the numbers measure and it is the physical processes that are important and that should interest us. ”
################
Nihilistic Skepticism. No one knows the physical process? Well, that’s not true.
The sensors measure the brightness temperature. That brightness temperature is transformed into the temperature of the atmoshphere at various altitudes. This estimate is cross checked with other measurements. the science behind this works. Our country is safer as a result.
You can even estimate the temperature of the ground to with 1K. tested. field verified.
So, some people know.
Funnily, claiming that you know that no one knows is anti skeptical.
Stephen Mosher says
If you reject Roy because you dont beleive. once you see the calibration data and invent another objection take care. That is a form of conspiritorial ideation.
The right way to do this is to LOOK for the calibration data FIRST. Then if you find something, report it.
Henry says
What is this. Is he drunk>?
UAH does not make any sense anymore.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Just throw UAH out. I will start updating my own data set again.
We’ve had a recent “sudden stratospheric warming.” One must consider the possibility that such warmings affect the upper anchor point of the lapse rate, which is the radiating zone, and therefore propagate downward into the troposphere. The above graphic shows the warming is at the poles. The noaa chart below, for the stratosphere north of 65 degrees, also shows warming at the poles. This ssw appears to be diminishing. Perhaps the tlt temperatures will also reverse.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.gif
“The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.”
We need a good surface temperature index. I don’t know anyone living at 8,000m above the surface!
HenryP
it still does not make sense
The atmosphere lag the surface so makes perfectly sense. The atmosphere warms when the trade winds ‘starts’ up again after a Nino.
HenryP says:
UAH does not make any sense anymore.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Just throw UAH out. I will start updating my own data set again.
——–
I don’t get your point. Add UAH to your plot and it will be almost identical to RSS data.
We had a fairly warm January in Greece, and the southern warm winds are continuing into February so my anecdotal evidence agrees with the plot.
Anyway, what is the fuss? One hot month does not eliminate the fact that for the last fifteen years temperatures have plateaued, which also this plot shows.
What goes up must come down :), so we had some blue, and are now at red. We should take bets on how soon it will oscillate to blue again.
Steven Mosher says:
February 6, 2013 at 11:20 am
‘Theo Goodwin says:
February 6, 2013 at 11:11
“Nihilistic Skepticism.”
Mosher, let me try to explain why you get so many rocks thrown at you on this website. Your first problem is that, as we used to say in grammar school, you call people names. To make things worse, you don’t know the meanings of the word you try to use. Skeptics use logic, scientific method, and empirical evidence to search through the dross in an effort to find the truth, well confirmed physical hypotheses being the ultimate goal. What does a nihilist do? Go look it up. Nihilism and skepticism are incompatible. A nihilistic skeptic is something like a short tall man.
Your second problem is that your comments are gratuitously offensive. You have begun using the terminology of the Lewandowskys and other cranks. See how far that gets you.
Mosher continues:
“No one knows the physical process? Well, that’s not true.
The sensors measure the brightness temperature. That brightness temperature is transformed into the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes. This estimate is cross checked with other measurements. the science behind this works.”
Do you really think that you have identified some physical process that is measured by the satellite temperature measurements? All I see is that you refer to “the brightness temperature” and “the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes.” Do you think those are physical processes? Do you think that “the atmosphere at a specific altitude” is a physical process? If you do then please do what any genuine scientist would do: state the well confirmed physical hypotheses that describe the natural phenomena occurring at that specific altitude in the atmosphere. I am skeptical of your claims for the same reason that I have always been skeptical of them: whenever asked to produce well confirmed physical hypotheses you produce nothing.