UAH Global Temperature Report: March 2013 – temperature unchanged from February 2013

tlt_update_bar-0313

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
March temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.

MARCH 2013 (1)
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
Tropics: +0.22 C (about 0.40 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.
February temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.18 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.37 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 C below 30-year average
Tropics: +0.17 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 April 1, 2013:

UAH climate dataset offers new products
Two new climate ‘products’ will soon be available from the UAH temperature dataset, while a long standing product has been improved to make it more accurate, 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. The “USA48” data, which tracks month-to-month temperature anomalies and the long-term climate trend over the contiguous 48 states, has been made more accurate by using a more precise tool for including the pieces of land adjacent to oceans.

The two new products are a USA49, which includes Alaska with the lower 48, and a listing for Australia, which includes Tasmania. Both of these new products will include temperature anomaly and trend data going back to the beginning of the UAH dataset in December 1978.

Compared to seasonal norms, during March the coldest area on the globe was in northeastern Russia, where the average temperature was as much as 6.49 C (about 11.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. Looking at the global anomaly map also shows the eastern U.S. and central Canada becoming much cooler than normal in March.
Compared to seasonal norms, the “warmest” area on the globe in March was middle of the Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island. Temperatures there averaged 6.49 C (about 11.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for March.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

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 –

96 thoughts on “UAH Global Temperature Report: March 2013 – temperature unchanged from February 2013

  1. “temperature unchanged from February 2013″

    That should read “anomaly unchanged”. The temperature is definitely different.

  2. Kasuha says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:26 am

    “temperature unchanged from February 2013″

    That should read “anomaly unchanged”. The temperature is definitely different.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Not round here it hasn’t. Into our 3rd month now of temps running below the Jan / Feb average and not much sign of a change yet!

  3. The lack of any anomaly in the east Pacific says El Nino/La Nina was pretty much “neutral”.

  4. If year-on-year seasonal averages in large areas can routinely shift by +/- 6.49 degrees C, can someone explain why we are supposed to get our undies in a bunch about a (purported) 2 degree rise in the next 90 years?

  5. I hope Alaska is not merged into the contiguous US: would be inappropriate and meaningless to do so.

  6. I must admit, I am a little surprised that the globe still manages to produce a positive temperature anomaly. Everywhere people reside seems to be experiencing unusual cold. Our local April fools joke was subzero weather and about 2 ft of AGW snowfall. My truck is currently stuck at the end of my farm lane, and I must go fire up, the big JD, and get it the hell out. GK

  7. Is this some kind of JOKE?
    The Northern Hemisphere, you know that place where cold Records have been tumbling across the whole area, is “+0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.”

    What world do these Satellites revolve around, it certainly is not this Earth.
    I have been saying it for quite a while now, the Lower Troposphere values bear no relationship with the reality that we experience, where is the CALIBRATION?

  8. It will be interesting to see where this goes next. With neutral ENSO conditions for several months one might look at the current value as only slightly warmer than a true average. This would be due to the positive AMO. Since the AMO appears to have peaked the most likely movement from this point on is cooling.

    In addition, the fact that the warming last month was mainly over oceans it’s fairly surprising that the Arctic sea ice has held up so well. With the winds currently favorable for less melting this summer’s minimum could significantly beat last year.

  9. Man, what does March have to do to get respect! With the SH at -0.02C change and much of the Eurasian and N.America in frigid conditions – even the Japanese that had to take a boat trip to see arctic ice in the 1990s can just walk down to the shore in Hokkaido and see it in April 2013. We’re below zero in Ottawa today (ice “extent” reaches us but they blasted ice on the Rideau River two weeks ago) and a brief respite out west will turn again in the next day or two. I’m awfully suspicious of the high temps in the arctic.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.html

    It’s still -20 to -25C over most of Greenland and below 0C from Hokkaido Japan through the Himalayas, Russia, Scandinavia, over almost all of Canada and halfway down the Central Plains of USA at the beginning of April. The thermometers must have fur coats on.

  10. For the first time, I too question March’s result. Europe and the US were colder than normal. At my house, March was an average of almost 3 degrees F below “normal”.

    Dr. Spencer would not falsify anything, but I really question the data he is forced to work with.

  11. here in Houston it was reported that March temps were -1.8 degrees C below average. the chart above shows the area right on the -0.5 line

  12. I think a few of the commenters here are falling into the “where I live is the world” trap.
    While it is true that the Eastern US (and the UK) have had a frigid winter, here in Oregon it has been much warmer than usual – this past weekend it was 78 degrees! There has been perhaps one day when it snowed, and the number of days below freezing can be counted on one hand. it has been a remarkably mild winter.

    Of course, with all of the US media based in NY, when it rains there its floods of biblical proportions hitting America!, when its warm, America sizzles in record temperatures, and a few flakes of snow is a sign of a new ice age.

  13. Looking at the global map, the colder than normal areas are very tightly focussed over the high population centers of Europe and North America. Much of north Africa and central Asia shows marginally warmer than usual so the overall anomaly for the NH is based on the averaging.

    For those people who are complaining, just wait until the situation is reversed and Europe N America is warm, but the NH anomaly is cooler. Then we will be hearing all the ‘end of the world’ scenarios again and we will need to remind people about this winter…..

    I am no expert, but isn’t the reason behind the very cold European temps something about a blocking high pressure area pushing cold arctic air down? If so, that will ‘explain’ the warm spot (relative to seasonal norms don’t forget) around Greenland.

  14. Oops, sorry Philip (Philip Peake, April 2, 2013 at 9:06 am),

    Didn’t see your post before I posted mine – basically more of the same!

  15. I’m not sure why some of you are questioning the data just because its been cold in Europe and North America. Just look at the map and you’ll see its been warm in northern Africa and a large portion of central Asia. This is the same backward thinking that alarmists use when heat records are being set in highly populated areas. They conveniently forget to look at the rest of the globe.

  16. Is this some kind of JOKE?
    The Northern Hemisphere, you know that place where cold Records have been tumbling across the whole area

    Over land areas, yes, but the UAH product also includes the ocean areas. A land only index might show a cold anomaly.

  17. A C Osborne: Sea surface temperatures are still a bit above average globally and as the Earth’s surface is mostly ocean, one would expect this to raise the surface temperatures a bit:

  18. What would be interesting, given the warmer and more moist air is, the more “energy” it has, is if someone would look at the warming over the pole where it has least effect on the energy budget vs the cooling further south and the implications on the true “temp” of the earth. 5C warmer where its frigid has little meaning compared to 1C cooler where wet bulb might be 50 degree higher like over the gulf. Notice the warm areas are where its drier.. or where wet bulbs would naturally be lower ( arctic ,Africa, Asia)

    I still think that this whole AGW idea is merely a distortion of the temperature pattern, a natural occurrence to a planet where more land is in the north than the south, and it wobbles on its axis. It seems inconceivable to me that a balance can ever be reached and the only true constant is change. If one steps back and understands what temperature is, a measure of energy, that there is no real change in this and its a matter of sloshing back and forth. That being said, the reduction of temps where the wet bulbs are higher should be the precursor to cooling in the coming decades where it has been warmer,IMHO

  19. Philip Peake says: April 2, 2013 at 9:06 am, you jest surely, do you actually read about the rest of the northern hemisphere. Record breaking Cold in Germany, Japan, China and most of the rest of Asia, Record snow in Russia, this is not just about Eastern US and the UK.

  20. Philip Peake says:
    April 2, 2013 at 9:06 am
    I think a few of the commenters here are falling into the “where I live is the world” trap. –

    Obviously you have not.

    On the plains here in Kansas the days are averaging about 15 degrees F below average per day. Why the map does not show it is beyond me.

    I suspect it the way that the calculate the anomaly and I suspect it has a warm bias in it.

  21. whether or naught weather is climate is not the issue, is it?
    a normal temp that is -20 that is now -14 is a temp increase (on average).
    The first diagram suggests that warming is ongoing since 2001 or so, am i missing something here?

  22. Also, Lower Troposphere temperature is different from surface temperature, whether local or global.

  23. I was thinking the same thing about the “where I live is the world” trap.

    However, the coldest anomaly in the US on the map above, shown to be in the south central part of the country is -2.5 Celsius.
    I did some checking on regional March climo reports and found the following Fahrenheit temp anomalies.
    Evansville IN, Cincinnati OH =-6.4
    Indianapolis IN, Louisville KY, Paducah KY =-6.7
    This indicates a uniformly colder pocket of air across several states.

    1. This means there should be a -3.5 anomaly on the map.
    2. The location of the coldest anomalies on the map above is shifted hundreds of miles south and west of the actual coldest pocket/anomalies but I will assume its mainly the result of this being a 2 dimensional maps that loses perspective from the curvature of the earth.
    3. The NWS stats are based on the same 30 year period for average(1981-2010).
    4. Maybe on a global scale, missing a pocket of several states barely into a 1 degree C colder anomaly is nit picking(probably it is) but since its “where I live” just thought it would be worth sharing.

  24. At the Meteorological Institute of Uccle, near Brussels, Belgium, the mean air temperature in March 2013 was only 3.0 deg C, while over the years the March average is 6.8.

  25. What these figures do show is just how much they were affected last autumn by the El Nino during the summer. (You know, the El Nino that NOAA pretended did not exist).

    In September and October, for instance, UAH peaked at 0.34C.

    It will be interesting to see the Ocean/Land split when Roy updates his site. Ocean numbers fell more sharply than Land in Feb.

    Continued low ocean numbers would suggest a prolonged drop in land temps in coming months.

  26. I’m a bit puzzled by the title since according to the UAH data March was an anomaly of 0.184 vs 0.175 in Feb so it went up, especially since the average temperature is higher for March?

    REPLY: Phil Felton, be puzzled all you want. Round up/round down, round out, go round and round, but .18 it is. – Anthony

  27. The Widget shows the CO2 for January 2013. The anomaly only gets updated about 3 weeks into the next month. Whoever is responsible for maintaining the Widget, you’re doing it wrong.

    REPLY: I’m responsible, and yes I’m not always able to update it because the code is broken (written right before climategate1 and got back burnered) and it must be done manually. Try running this blog and dealing with the hundreds of emails I get every day, and trying to keep up with the current news, demands of readers, demands of my business and family and see if you can do a better job. Walk a mile in my shoes while doing it all for free. – Anthony

  28. Philip Peake says (April 2, 2013 at 9:06 am): “Of course, with all of the US media based in NY, when it rains there its floods of biblical proportions hitting America!”

    South Park: “Tom, I’m currently 10 miles outside of Beaverton, unable to get inside the town proper. We do not have any reports of fatalities yet, but we believe that the death toll may be in the hundreds of millions.”

    http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2008/01/s9-two-days-before-day-after-tomorrow.html

  29. The map shown isn’t correct for our region: in De Bilt (The Netherlands) the march average temperature was 2.5 degrees Celsius, where the long year mean is 6.2 degrees. That’s a 3.7 degrees difference. The map only shows a 2.0-ish negative anomaly.

  30. “Compared to seasonal norms, during March the coldest area on the globe was in northeastern Russia, where the average temperature was as much as 6.49 C (about 11.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.”

    I think that should read northwestern Russia, not northeastern.

    The colouring for Norway seems slightly off the detailed instrument record for March:

    which was -3,0C compared to the 1961-90 average (which is significantly cooler than the 1981-2010 average).

  31. btw – here in germany – the cold march and the long lasting winter 2012 / 2013 are stylized to an “example of extreme weather events” predicted by “CO2 climate change” to become true – obviously there is no bussines but snow bussiness … and ignorance rules – in the land of PIK and windmills and solar panel fostering… it should be a LOL – but it is much more, my purse can take … :-(

  32. I like to track the Daily official UAH temps. There are more interesting patterns such as oscillations that work on about two-week timelines that don’t really show up in the monthly averages.

    Temps have been heading down since the impact of the last small El Nino peaked at the end of August and in mid-November, 2012. I see there is about 90 day or 3 month lag for when the ENSO provides it impact on global temperatures so the trend down started in mid-January and will continue into April.

    Daily UAH temps over 2012 to 2013 to date.

    This one is the Daily temps from 2010 to 2013 to date so we can see how temperatures have changed since the last large El Nino hit at the end of 2009 and how temps reacted to the last large La Nina (which peaked in early October 2011). End of March 2013 temps are down about -0.5C since the peak temperatures in mid-January 2010 but up from early January 2012.

    I’ve been waiting for the Lower Stratosphere temps to go back up after the impact of the last large volcano, Pinatubo’s, impact on Ozone depletion wears off. There might be a small uptick in March, 2013 with Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere in the positive territory. Lower stratosphere temps have been stable/rising for 16 years now.

    This is how I see the volcanoes impacting both the Troposphere and the Stratosphere.

  33. I just don’t get it. It seemed a very large swath of the northern hemisphere broke all kinds of cold records everywhere for the entire month of march, (and I don’t remember reading about any extreme southern hemisphere heat) yet we still have a positive anomaly. I cannot imagine how cold it must get to get below average…does it require 10 feet of snow in Furnace Creek, Death Valley to get below the mystical zero mark? How on earth did people survive the 60’s?

  34. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    Mike Maguire says: “1. This means there should be a -3.5 anomaly on the map.”

    No Mike. You’re measuring surface temp. Tnis is a lower tropospheric measurement. JP

  35. Can people take a breath here – this report is the satellite record for the lower troposphere – it is not the land record.

  36. Robert Wykoff — Yep, that’s the real tragedy here, if you go back further than satellite records, it’s pretty clear what GISS is telling us — if something isn’t done soon our grandparents will freeze to death.

    Seriously though, even when Europe and the U.S. are cold/hot it’s not unusual for the anomaly to go the other way, we’re just not that big a piece of the puzzle as a whole. Been watching this for a long time now, it used to surprise me too.

  37. Hmmm. It’s interesting that the maximum warmest anomaly is, at a global scale, practically next door to the maximum coolest anomaly. The recent discussion about the time-resolution of paleoclimate reconstructions (the averaging that inevitably results from estimating temperature from, for example, the sediment layed down over decades or centuries) also makes me start wondering about the geographic resolution of those reconstructions. Is there any way to control for or to at least estimate the degree to which the measured data is an artifact of location rather than an indication of global trends?

    In theory, it should all average out but I am becoming more and more distrustful of that assumption.

  38. “The Widget shows the CO2 for January 2013. The anomaly only gets updated about 3 weeks into the next month. Whoever is responsible for maintaining the Widget, you’re doing it wrong.

    REPLY: I’m responsible, and yes I’m not always able to update it because the code is broken (written right before climategate1 and got back burnered) and it must be done manually. Try running this blog and dealing with the hundreds of emails I get every day, and trying to keep up with the current news, demands of readers, demands of my business and family and see if you can do a better job. Walk a mile in my shoes while doing it all for free. – Anthony”

    Anthony, am more than happy to take on the task of keeping said widget current.

    Cheers

    Mark

  39. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    What will it take for people to get it in their head:
    1. What’s happening in your backyard does not determine the global/hemispheric averages.
    2. Anecdotes from media outlets about certain large regional areas do not determine global/hemispheric averages.

    And while we’re at it:
    Don’t conflate Lower Tropospheric Temperatures with surface temps.

    Geez.

  40. John Parsons AKA atarsinc,
    Thanks for correcting me. Yes, of course you are right. The UAH data is from the lower troposphere and the temperatures in my previous post came from the NWS, which records temperatures using thermometers inside of shelter boxes around 2 meters/6 feet above the surface.

  41. John Morrow says:
    April 2, 2013 at 10:20 am
    “,,,Lower Troposphere temperature is different from surface temperature, whether local or global.”
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    That is the point.

    It follows from this that one cannot make a direct comparison with the surface thermometer based data sets Our own personal experience is at surface level, and, of course, it is local to where we live, not some globalized average.

    Keith Gordon (April 2, 2013 at 9:25 am) points out that in the UK, March was some 3degC below ‘normal’. A similar point is made by Jean Meeus (April 2, 2013 at 10:37 am) for March temperatures in Belgium (similar northern latitute to that of UK).

    A more significant fact that has not yet been picked up by MSM is that for the UK the winter average has fallen some 1.5deg C since 2000. It would appear that UK winter temperatures are falling, and falling fast. The UK is not well prepared for this since the UK Met Office is always forecasting warmer temperatures.

  42. mikerossander says:
    April 2, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    I am “..wondering about the geographic resolution of those reconstructions. Is there any way to control for or to at least estimate the degree to which the measured data is an artifact of location rather than an indication of global trends?”
    ////////////////////////////////////////////
    Mike

    Look at temperature anomaly figure 1 of the Marcott FAQ. This is apparently the thermometer temperature anomaly taken from stations from the same geographical location (or nearby location) as the proxies used in their reconstruction was taken. It shows just 0.5degC warming from 1880 to date. It shows that to day (2000 – 2012) is just 0.2degC warmer than 1940. The temperature anomaly in figure 1 is quite different to the usual thermometer temperature anomaly sets such as GISS Hadcrut etc which suggests that the reconstruction is to some extent an artefact of location (which is of course what one would expect)..

  43. Rob Potter says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Can people take a breath here – this report is the satellite record for the lower troposphere – it is not the land record.,
    ==============================================
    True, but it is curious and an opportunity to learn. Before the satelite era, especially in the warm 40s, we had neither satelites or weather ballons. If we were to only judge todays surface T, by the same long running well situated stations active in the cooler early 1970s, I wonder how they would compare?

  44. In the comment above (david says, april 2nd 3:40) I do mean the same stations from the 1970s that were used to establish the global meant T, compared to those same stations now. With a proper adjustment for UHI of course.

  45. richard verney says:
    April 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    A more significant fact that has not yet been picked up by MSM is that for the UK the winter average has fallen some 1.5deg C since 2000. It would appear that UK winter temperatures are falling, and falling fast. The UK is not well prepared for this since the UK Met Office is always forecasting warmer temperatures.
    ====================================================
    Indeed. Which is why our airports and local government were unprepared for heavy snow (that stuff of which children would know nothing) a couple of years ago, resulting in transport chaos. And right now our gas (cooking & heating, not autos) supply is close to being on a knife edge as a result of this winter’s prolonged cold. But still the major political parties are of the same voice re CAGW.

  46. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    View from the Solent says: “But still the major political parties are of the same voice re CAGW.”

    Solent, you may have a legitimate beef with your regional weather forcasters, but that says nothing about the veracity of AGW. The regional affects of AGW are going to be filled with surprises for scientists and lay folks. Many will undoubtedly be unpleasant. JP

  47. atarsinc says:
    April 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    Don’t conflate Lower Tropospheric Temperatures with surface temps.
    —————————————————–

    They are very similar you know.

    The UAH anomaly map is very similar to the surface temp map.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/march-2013-1_thumb.png?w=640&h=396

    If you plot the UAH numbers against surface temps, they are very similar.

    But most importantly, UAH is an objective source and does not continually cool the past and warm the present like the surface temperature recorders (NCDC, HadCru and GISS) do.

    This is the only objective source we have which is semi-keeping-the-adjusters honest now (at least staring in 1979). Even RSS would happily jump on the adjustment train without Roy Spencer and UAH there to keep them honest.

    I would throw out all the surface temperature records and have real statisticians redo the whole thing from the beginning. Hansen, Jones, Karl, Peterson and all that. (Can you imagine being a lowly IT/data processing person when the monthly numbers come out and Hansen is leaning over your shoulder. Of course, you are going to say, “you know James, I could just make an assumption about … and the number would go up 0.1C, just like last month, and the month before that …”.

  48. Thank you Dr Christy for including Australia. That will be a great help to us all.
    To those concerned about the difference between surface and tropospheric anomalies: annual means match quite well, at least for Australian land grids. As well, land surface temperatures have much greater fluctuation from hot to cold than tropospheric temperatures (and of course sea temperatures).
    Ken Stewart

  49. atarsinc says:

    “The regional affects of AGW…”

    That kind of fuzzy thinking is typical of the climate alarmist crowd. AGW refers to “global”, not “regional”.

    Extreme weather events are always regional, and they have been decreasing for decades. Trying to label them as “AGW” shows, I think, considerable desperation; reaching for support. As a matter of scientific fact, AGW itself is only a conjecture.

    AGW may well exist. But its effect is so minuscule that it cannot even be measured. AGW will remain a conjecture unless and until reliable, verifiable, testable measurements of it are produced — measurements that cannot be attributed to another cause.

  50. UAH Global Temperature Report
    A chart of y/100000 truths and x/100000 lies that misses uvwxyz/100000 unknows, to convey a certainity that doesn’t exist.

  51. OK–right. the “The satellite-based microwave global average sea surface temperature (SST) update for March 2013 is -0.01 deg. C” and “global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2013 is +0.18 deg. C” BUT as G. Karst, Gary Pearse, Box of Rocks, Robert Wykoff, geran, and many others are astounded and question the anomaly being above average again in the face of bitter cold, explanations for us “laymen” rather than condescending quips are more in order, don’t you think? As A C Osborn so clearly says,

    Is this some kind of JOKE? The Northern Hemisphere, you know that place where cold Records have been tumbling across the whole area, is “+0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for March.”

    Temps have been tumbling–No it is not a falling into the “where I live is the world” trap. It is very real and enough of us are noticing it and now pointing it out and it appears that some at WUWT are thumbing their nose at us for noticing the extreme cold in wide areas of the NH*–and questioning the data and conclusions.

    Rob Potter says: Can people take a breath here – this report is the satellite record for the lower troposphere – it is not the land record.

    Thanks Rob–that actually is one of the best (not condescending) explanations–but still, why would the lower troposhere not reflect what we see on the surface?

    Then Dr. Spencer let us know the SST is -.01, but Tisdale comes in saying “The global sea surface temperature anomalies are presently at about +0.21 deg C so WTF is anyone supposed to believe? (the “F” stands for frack, I’m a Glatica fan)

    I would like to see an article or explanation on the discrepancies–not that any of us have much time to be researching articles–but if someone out there has the time and talent—- :)

    * (as others have pointed out in “Japan through the Himalayas, Russia, Scandinavia, over almost all of Canada and halfway down the Central Plains of USA” in England and Germany and Belgium, Alaska—and sorry but parts of Africa and Asia being slightly warmer doesn’t undue the bitter record breaking cold in the rest of the NH)

  52. Gary Hladik said
    “South Park: “Tom, I’m currently 10 miles outside of Beaverton, unable to get inside the town proper. We do not have any reports of fatalities yet, but we believe that the death toll may be in the hundreds of millions.”

    http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2008/01/s9-two-days-before-day-after-tomorrow.html

    That South Park episode is a good one for kids having been forced in public school to watch Al Gore’s fictional /non scientific CAGW propaganda “film”?

    I think that this South Park episode deserves the peace prize more than Al Gore’s film?

  53. I would like to reword this and ask if anyone has the capacity and or intrest to check.
    Rob Potter says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    Can people take a breath here – this report is the satellite record for the lower troposphere – it is not the land record.,
    ==============================================
    True, but it is curious and an opportunity to learn. Before the satelite era, especially in the warm 40s, we had neither satelites or weather ballons. If we were to only judge todays surface T, by the same long running well situated stations active in the cooler early 1970s, I wonder how they would compare? Also this time frame, as well as earlier cool periods would eliminate much of the SST factor in todays global average. (Yes, I know the pit falls of equating energy content with an average T, but it is what we have to work with.)

  54. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    D.B. Stealey says: Climate Change cannot have regional affects. That’s “fuzzy thinking”.

    Oh really? So the last Ice Age had no regional affects. Interesting. JP

  55. atarsinc,

    ^That comment^ is not even wrong.

    What is it about A •G• W that you can’t understand? AGW refers to global temperatures, not regional temperatures. It’s really as simple as that.

    Also, I made no mention of “climate change”. Only you did. Red herring arguments like that are the result of fuzzy thinking.

  56. atarsinc says:
    April 2, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    D.B. Stealey says: Climate Change cannot have regional affects. That’s “fuzzy thinking”.

    Oh really? So the last Ice Age had no regional affects. Interesting. JP
    ============================================
    The last Ice Age was globally cool. Currently we are not outside of historic norms, and have had no warming for 16 years.

  57. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    D.B. Stealey says: Well…a bunch of stuff.

    D.B. Do you not understand that global climatic affects create regional changes that vary greatly?AGW is one type of Climate Change. Ice Ages are another. I used the latter example so you might see the point without triggering an autonomic abnegation response. JP

  58. david says:
    April 2, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    David, Please see the reply to D. B.
    Climate is not measured in periods as short as sixteen years. It certainly is not measured by a sixteen year period begining with the year with the highest temperature recorded in a hundred years. (Or even the second highest) NCAR has a nice glossary that might help. JP

  59. philincalifornia says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    Affects ??

    Is your first language Moronish ?

    Your grammatical point is correct. Why do you need the snide remarks? JP

  60. Astarsinc said
    “Solent, you may have a legitimate beef with your regional weather forcasters, but that says nothing about the veracity of AGW. The regional affects of AGW are going to be filled with surprises for scientists and lay folks. Many will undoubtedly be unpleasant. JP”

    When we have natural GW(NGW) or hypothetical AGW. Equator will not get much warmer than it is, but polar areas will. The temperature gradient/difference between equator and the polar region will be less and give less wind and “weather”. Just like in the summer with regional warming of the North Pole and and equator more or less the same, mostly weak low pressures with less wind and less strong low pressures autumn/winter” storms lookalike?
    The energy is the temperature difference and that should decrease with NGW or hypothetical AGW.
    There must be hundreds of regional study’s globally showing more extreme weather in periods with natural global cooling and less extreme weather with NGW. Well documented in studies from our region, Svalbard to Norway and Iceland.

  61. atarsinc says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    Climate is not measured in periods as short as sixteen years.

    But climate change due to CO2 at calculated sensitivity levels should be detectable across a dozen years, according to the IPCC. Those sensitivity levels are going to need dialing back soon.

  62. Day By Day says:
    April 2, 2013 at 7:17 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////
    You can add to your list of cold places, Southern Spain. Apart from a week at the beginning of January and a week at the end of Januray/beginning of February, the first 3 months of the year have been very cold.

    I would normally be swimming at Easter but my swimming pool is at least 8 degC colder than is usual for this time of year. Warm weather is not being forecast in the next 10 days (a high of 23C with nighttime 14C is the peak). But surely this is hjust weather since we are sitting at the edge of the low which sits over the UK/Belgium/Holland.

    But in the NH around UK, there does seem to be a change in temps on the way. Average winter temperatures in the UK have fallen by 1.5deg C since 2000. This drop is more than the 20th century rise! However, this is just the winter (3 month average Dec to Feb inclussive) average. The entire yearly average has fallen by 0.5degC. It does appear that the UK (and other European countries situated at similar latitude) are heading towards a period when winter temperatures will be cooler than the 30 year average. Probably this is something to do with ocean cycles.

    Whilst the satelite data set has some issues, I prefer it to the other repeadedly adjusted thermometer data sets which have unfortunately become so basterdised to be next to useless. If only we had some decent ocean temperature records, we would know a lot more. Ocean temperature is the only important metric since their heat capacity dwarfs that of the atmosphere, and it is the ocean that drives the climate. Hey ho, that data simply does not exist.

  63. atarsinc:

    You are building yourself a reputation for being a conveyor of climate disinformation of the type supplied by e.g. SkS. This is annoying because – in this and other threads – your posts consume space by requiring corrections to prevent your assertions misleading the uninformed.

    You provide such disinformation in your post at April 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm where you write.

    Climate is not measured in periods as short as sixteen years. It certainly is not measured by a sixteen year period begining with the year with the highest temperature recorded in a hundred years. (Or even the second highest) NCAR has a nice glossary that might help. JP

    That is plain wrong!
    Climate is the summation of expected weather behaviours in a region, and can be expressed as an average of weather parameter(s) over ANY time period but the used time period must be stated.

    For example, the 1994 IPCC Report used 4-year periods to determine climate and to assess climate change as indicated by frequency of hurricanes.
    And
    the various compilations of global temperature anomaly (including UAH) assess an observed climate metric for individual months.

    If – as you assert – “Climate is not measured in periods as short as sixteen years” then the shortest climate period would be 17 years, and we would only have 7 or 8 data points for global temperature because measurements only began around 1880.

    The datum being debated in this thread is “UAH global temperature for March 2013”. This datum is one measurement of the global climate for the month of March in 2013. It will be compared to other monthly climate data.

    I suspect you may have been misinformed about the definition of a Standard Climate Period (SCP) which is 30 years. In 1958 the International Geophysical Year defined 30 years as being a SCP for the purely arbitrary reason that it was thought there was then sufficient data to deduce global climate data for the previous 30 years. Hence, comparisons of climate data should be made to a 30-year average (i.e. mean). The arbitrary choice of 30-years for SCP is unfortunate because 30 years is not a multiple of the 11-year solar cycle, the 22-year Hale cycle, or several other climate cycles.

    The various global temperature data sets (i.e. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS, etc.) do not present temperatures but present ‘anomalies’ which are differences from an SCP average temperature. Importantly, each of them uses a different 30-year period as its SCP.

    This adoption of global temperature anomalies is useful because it e.g. permits anomalies from different data sets to be adjusted so they have the same start values for comparison of their variations with time.

    Importantly, the anomalies remove seasonal variation from global temperature. In each year the global temperature increases by 3.8degC from June to January and falls by the same amount from January to June. The use of anomalies removes this variation to reveal, for example, the rise of ~0.8deg.C in global temperature over the last century and to permit the UAH datum for March 2013 to the UAH value for February 2013..

    In summation, your post at April 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm is bunkum.

    Richard

  64. I cannot comment about the recent weather (spring temperatures 2013) in southern Spain, but up on the north coast of Spain, there is still well-packed snow across all of the mountain peaks, and wet, cold weather below in the valleys.

    Regular news reports about excess water, higher-than-usual water flows and high water across roads, reservoirs near-full, etc. Now, what’s this “crisis” about drouts we read from the well-funded CAGW publicists?

  65. atarsinc says:

    “AGW is one type of Climate Change. Ice Ages are another. I used the latter example so you might see the point without triggering an autonomic abnegation response.”

    atarsinc, with our ‘automatic abnegation response’ antennae we can smoke out a climate alarmist from three states away. One large clue: you all seem to misuse language.

    AGW is not “regional”, as you keep trying to assert. It is specifically global, by definition: ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’. But by admitting that fact you lose your mini-debate, so you keep backing, filling, and tap-dancing. Why not just admit that you were wrong, and we can move on? You’re only giving us a cudgel, and asking us to keep hitting you over the head with it. You’re making it too easy from a skeptic’s perspective. That’s the result of fuzzy thinking.

    While you’re at it, face the fact that AGW itself is a non-issue. AGW, if it exists [and it probably does], is so small that it can be completely ignored for all practical purposes. Thus, the entire “carbon” scare can be ignored for the grant-fueled scare that it is.

  66. I’m calling the temperature standstill at 18 years.

    This would then start at the beginning of 1995 (after the impacts of Pinatubo fully wore off in the troposphere and in the stratosphere and new levels were re-set).

    Flat temps in both since 1995.

  67. Regarding dbstealey says:
    ——————————————————
    GB, please stop refering to AGW. It should always read as CAGW. Why? Because that is what the claim is. All of the disasters of CAGW have failed to materialise, while the KNOWN benefits of CO2 continue to manifest.
    ———————
    Re. atarsinc , your comment about 16 years shows you are either not thinking well, or purposefully miss read what I said. There have been three periods in the current glacial likely warmer then the present. Those three periods easily contain the current flatlined warmth to be well within natural variation. There were several other posts that had the patience to go into more detail with you. I appeciate them, but your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

  68. Oh, and atarsinc, the 16 year flatline is not cherry picked. It is the answer to the question, “For how long of a period has the earth gone without experincing any measureable (statistically significant) warming? Since the “how long part” is defined by the anwswer there is no cherry picking. Cherry picking is starting all the CAGW claims at 1975, at a time when many thought we might be entering into the Ice Age, ignoring the much warmer 1940s. Oh, and BTW, ithe period starts one year before the peak T reached in the El Nino of that time frame. How many things can you get wrong in one sentance.

  69. Still looking for help if anyone wants to take a crack at this…
    Before the satelite era, especially in the warm 40s, we had neither satelites or weather balloons. If we were to only judge todays 9march 2013 ) surface T, by the same long running well situated stations active in the cooler early 1970s, I wonder how they would compare? Also this time frame, as well as earlier cool periods would eliminate much of the ocean meausrements in todays global average. Certainly the oceans are a moderating factor on global T when land T has far wider swings.
    (Yes, I know the pit falls of equating energy content with an average T, but it is what we have to work with.)

  70. David:

    I write to support the very important point you make in your post at April 3, 2013 at 6:32 am.

    Some may not understand its importance so I again explain it here.

    If one wants to know how long it has been since there was any discernible global warming at 95% confidence then one has to start from now – any other date is ‘cherry picking’ – and consider back in time. Then one has to determine if global temperature trend differs from zero at the low confidence level of 95% which is used by ‘climate science’.

    It turns out that – depending on which time series is analysed – the time of no recent discernible global warming at 95% confidence is between 16 and 23 years. In other words, discernible global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    This finding refutes the AGW hypothesis as exemplified by global climate models.

    The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    So, your point is really, really important.
    In my opinion, it needs to be stated and explained wherever possible.

    Richard

  71. beng says:

    Mid-troposphere temps don’t perfectly reflect surface temps — inversions can cause that

    Apparently they don’t reflect surface much at all–how often do inversions occur or is this pretty standard MO for the troposphere and what predictive value does it have?

    David says:

    Still looking for help if anyone wants to take a crack at this…
    Before the satelite era, especially in the warm 40s, we had neither satelites or weather balloons. If we were to only judge todays 9march 2013 ) surface T, by the same long running well situated stations active in the cooler early 1970s, I wonder how they would compare? Also this time frame, as well as earlier cool periods would eliminate much of the ocean meausrements in todays global average. Certainly the oceans are a moderating factor on global T when land T has far wider swings.

    I believe this has been done and I read here at WUWT already–but don’t have it bookmarked–maybe someone can help?

    Richard, Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?). good laugh

  72. David,

    You say:

    “There have been three periods in the current glacial likely warmer then the present. Those three periods easily contain the current flatlined warmth to be well within natural variation.”

    So, either past temps exceeded today’s temperatures, but they were normal and natural, while current temperatures are not normal or natural.

    Or…

    Current temperatures are routine, normal, and every bit as natural as several previous Holocene warm periods.

    atarsinc needs to provide testable, empirical scientific evidence to support the first possibility. But so far, he is posting based only on his assertions.

    I am an ‘empirical measurements’ kinda guy. If something cannot be measured, then it is not really science. It is, at best, an educated guess. A conjecture. An opinion.

  73. UK March temperatures are joint second coldest on record

    Provisional full-month Met Office figures for March confirm it has been an exceptionally cold month, with a UK mean temperature of 2.2 °C.

    This is 3.3 °C below the 1981-2010 long-term average for the month, and ranks this March as joint second coldest (with 1947) in our records dating back to 1910. Only March 1962 was colder, with a record-breaking month mean temperature of 1.9 °C.

    In an unusual turn of events, this March was also colder than the preceding winter months of December (3.8 °C), January (3.3 °C) and February (2.8 °C). This last happened in 1975.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/march-is-joint-second-coldest-on-record/

  74. Thanks Richard, I do post against the Cherry picking charge whenever I see it, and I appreciate the additional IPCC ,”wrong again” projections.

    D.B. Stealey says:
    April 3, 2013 at 11:33 am

    ———————————————————————————-
    Yes, I agree with all that you said, and CAGW is mostly conjecture.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Day by Day says
    Thanks for checking into my question…”Before the satelite era, especially in the warm 40s, we had neither satelites or weather balloons. If we were to only judge todays (march 2013 ) surface T, by the same long running well situated stations active in the cooler early 1970s, I wonder how they would compare? Also this time frame, as well as earlier cool periods would eliminate much of the ocean meausrements in todays global average. Certainly the oceans are a moderating factor on global T when land T has far wider swings.”

    If you find an answer much appreciated/

  75. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    richardscourtney

    Your posts have some interesting insights. Particularly regarding the collection and use of temp data. However, they say nothing about the predictive value of the 16 year period you’ve chosen. A period begining with the hottest year of the data set.

    And where did you get that definition of climate? Did you make it up? This is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know.

    Just so you don’t need to waste any more time letting me know how stupid I am: Richard Courtney is very, very smart and I’m not smart like Richard Courtney. JP

  76. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    D.B. “AGW is not “regional”, as you keep trying to assert.”

    I’m most certainly not asserting that AGW is regional. That’s an inherent contradiction. I’m asserting that Global Climate Change has different effects in different regions. Doesn’t matter what causes it. How noncontoversial can one get.

    Thanks for letting me know that your purpose here is to “cudgel” anyone with whom you disagree. JP

  77. atarsinc says:

    “I’m most certainly not asserting that AGW is regional.”

    Read your statement above, where you write, “The regional affects [sic] of AGW…”

    Allow me to step out of the way, as you carefully climb down. ☺

  78. D.B.,
    There are two categories:
    1. Global Climate Change.
    2. The effects of such Change.
    Number 1 is Global by definition.
    Number 2 differs by region.
    JP

  79. Nice try, atarsinc. But no kewpie doll.

    Ask yourself what the “G” stands for in AGW. It doesn’t mean reGional.

  80. John Parsons AKA atarsinc

    D.B., With all due respect, you simply refuse to recognise the difference between Climate Change and the effects of Climate Change. JP

  81. atarsinc says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm
    philincalifornia says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    Affects ??

    Is your first language Moronish ?

    Your grammatical point is correct. Why do you need the snide remarks? JP
    ————————
    Anger will do that.

    Don’t underestimate the pent up anger that’s coming your tribe’s way in the future.

    ….. but I do apologize to you personally. It’s the people above you that people like me are going to be kicking while they’re down – metaphorically speaking, of course.

  82. john parsons AKA atarsinc:

    I am copying all your post at April 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm so the offensiveness of what I am answering is clear.

    richardscourtney

    Your posts have some interesting insights. Particularly regarding the collection and use of temp data. However, they say nothing about the predictive value of the 16 year period you’ve chosen. A period begining with the hottest year of the data set.

    And where did you get that definition of climate? Did you make it up? This is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know.

    Just so you don’t need to waste any more time letting me know how stupid I am: Richard Courtney is very, very smart and I’m not smart like Richard Courtney. JP

    Allow me to address your final paragraph first.

    Everybody makes mistakes and gets things wrong sometimes.

    If I say something wrong then I am grateful when somebody tells me of my error. Indeed, you need look no further than yesterday’s ‘WUWT’ Open Thread for an example of me thanking somebody for correcting a misunderstanding I had stated. That does not make me “very, very smart” but it does show I want to learn.

    You differ from me in that you make completely wrong statements as though they are true and object when the truth is explained to you. I do NOT say “how stupid” you are and I have not said it: why would I when your words speak for themselves?

    I advise you to learn from the comments of others, and I remind that David wrote this to you at April 3, 2013 at 6:23 am

    Re. atarsinc , your comment about 16 years shows you are either not thinking well, or purposefully miss read what I said. There have been three periods in the current glacial likely warmer then the present. Those three periods easily contain the current flatlined warmth to be well within natural variation. There were several other posts that had the patience to go into more detail with you. I appeciate them, but your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

    You achieve nothing by whinging at me for correcting your mistakes. But you may make fewer mistakes if you consider why somebody – not me – publicly says to you

    your condesending lecture tone only makes your arrogance appear to exceed your ignorance, something I hardly thought possible.

    Turning to your first paragraph, I can only observe that it says you have severe reading comprehension difficulties. It says to me

    Your posts have some interesting insights. Particularly regarding the collection and use of temp data. However, they say nothing about the predictive value of the 16 year period you’ve chosen. A period begining with the hottest year of the data set.

    That is complete nonsense. I explained the matter in detail in posts at April 3, 2013 at 3:07 am and with full explanation, reference, and quotation at April 3, 2013 at 7:23 am. And others did, too.

    It is clear that you would benefit if you were to spend less time pontificating about issues you obviously don’t understand and spend more time reading the information which corrects your misunderstandings.

    You ask me,

    And where did you get that definition of climate? Did you make it up?

    How dare you suggest I would “make it up”!?
    You make stuff up. I don’t. I correct the stuff you make up.
    I would accept your apology.

    Before making such offensive suggestions you would do well to check your facts with a simple google. The definition I provided is obtainable in many places and using several different forms of words. This is one version copied from the IPCC AR4 Glossary which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf

    Climate
    Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these
    variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various parts of this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are also used.

    Richard

  83. coldest baseball opening day ever, April 1, Minnesota Twins, Minneapolis – 35 F.

    Somebody’s lying if they say it isn’t gettin colder, not just staying the same.

  84. “The temperature anomaly map above(in link below), based on data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, shows how this affected temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. The map displays land surface temperature anomalies between March 14–20, 2013, compared to the same dates from 2005 to 2012. Areas with above-average temperatures appear in red and orange, and areas with below-average temperatures appear in shades of blue. Much of Europe, Russia, and the eastern United States saw unusually cool temperatures, while Greenland and Nunavut Territory were surprisingly warm for the time of year.”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80804&src=eoa-iotd

    “The ice is thinner, and satellite data suggests that first-year ice may now cover the North Pole area for the first time since winter 2008.”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/04/spring-has-sprung-in-the-arctic/

    This is all still ambiguous without a clear catastrophe to declare to Chicken Little. Yet other ‘spheres’ of change may be more climatic.

    http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/category/military-buildup

Comments are closed.