UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C
(Note, my original headline number was unintentionally misleading, using a percentage to illustrate the drop rather that the absolute number. While the calculation was correct, it gave an impression of overall magnitude across the entire scale rather than the month to month change. It has been corrected. – Anthony)
by Dr, Roy Spencer
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2014 is +0.17 deg. C, down 0.12 deg C from January (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 1 +0.497 +0.517 +0.478 +0.386
2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 5 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 6 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 7 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 8 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 9 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.190
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.249 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.266 +0.272 +0.260 +0.057
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.028
2014 2 +0.172 +0.325 +0.019 -0.102
Note that most of the cooling was in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, less in the Northern Hemisphere.
The global image for February should be available in the next day or so here.
Popular monthly data files (these might take a few days to update):
uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (Lower Troposphere)
uahncdc_mt_5.6.txt (Mid-Troposphere)
uahncdc_ls_5.6.txt (Lower Stratosphere)
===========================================================
Global Temperature Report: February 2014
March 5, 2014 Vol. 23, No. 11
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
February temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) above
30-year average for February.
Tropics: -0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average
for February.
January temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.29 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.39 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.19 C above 30-year average
Tropics: -0.03 C below 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010)
for the month reported.)
Notes on data released March 5, 2014:
Warm temperature anomalies in the Arctic during February indicate a
displacement of cold air from that region to other areas, such as from
North America through the North Atlantic into eastern Russia,
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.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in
February was over the southwestern corner of Canada’s Saskatchewan
province near the town of Eston, where temperatures were as much as
4.68 C (about 8.42 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
With Arctic air holding sway over much of North America, temperatures
in the Arctic were generally warmer than normal in February. Compared
to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in February was
over the Arctic Ocean northeast of Svalbard, a group of islands about
halfway between Norway and the North Pole. Temperatures there were as
much as 6.16 C (11.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and
NASA, Christy 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 —
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh, please. “UAH Global Temperature Down 40% in February”?
There’s a lot of variability in the data. A 0.17 deg C anomaly is nothing special, either up or down. It’s merely more of the same, the pause, the stall, the lack of umph. It makes is yet another month of non-warming, but it really isn’t news-flash worthy.
Could we please eschew such drama in further UAH headlines, especially when there is really nothing new or interesting to report?
[Yes, headline has been changed. See Anthony’s note at head of article. – mod]
Wow the tropics are a cooling! Anything to do with a slight La Nina – to La Nada condition?
“Down 40%” is a meaningless measure for a monthly anomaly, as the 1981-2010 baseline is an arbitrary choice.
[Yes, headline has been changed. See Anthony’s note at head of article. – mod]
What is the average temperature for the Arctic? The areas that I have been watching are showing -35C to -38 for February.
Re: “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade”
Compare IPCC models projecting ~ 3 C by 2100. “Only” a factor of 2 off 34 year reality.
A bit of uncertainty! – as noted by Judith Curry in Causes and implications of the pause
Steven Kopits says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Oh, please. “UAH Global Temperature Down 40% in February”?
There’s a lot of variability in the data. A 0.17 deg C anomaly is nothing special, either up or down. It’s merely more of the same, the pause, the stall, the lack of umph. It makes is yet another month of non-warming, but it really isn’t news-flash worthy.
Could we please eschew such drama in further UAH headlines, especially when there is really nothing new or interesting to report?
+++++++++++++
While I understand your sentiment, I disagree that there is “nothing… interesting to report” Any news that counters the claims of the warmists tends to help keep them in check. An El Nino is about all they need to push back into the hysteria. Every month that rolls by where the anomalies are within a no trend to slight down trend bound is another thumb tack in their coffin.
The Arctic is warming … according to the models… disregard that the models are all blond.
From NASA:
The heat from warm river waters draining into the Arctic Ocean is contributing to the melting of Arctic sea ice each summer, a new NASA study finds. A research team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory used satellite data to measure the surface temperature of the waters discharging from a Canadian river into the icy Beaufort Sea during the summer of 2012. They observed a sudden influx of warm river waters into the sea that rapidly warmed the surface layers of the ocean, enhancing the melting of sea ice
The Headline says down “40%”, but the text nowhere mentions “40%.”
I fear I miss the point.
I, too, have a problem with the title. It uses an arbitrary baseline. Taken literally, “temperature down 40%” could mean we’re 40% closer to absolute zero.
Good news at last! On on practically the same day the Kansas City STAR illumines our lives with the news that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was as high as it is today was 800,000 years ago. They forgot to mention that 800,000 years ago the great continental glacier was depositing moraines around KC.
Think we all agree that the title should be changed, even if its a dig at the alarmists.
It is interesting however that the tropics are pretty cold despite some predicting the onset of El Nino conditions in late 2014. Also interesting that the reason the anomaly is positive is because of high arctic temps, I can’t help but wonder what the temps would look like if this data wasn’t included.
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
According to the NOAA SST anomaly data, it seems like we’ll be expecting some further cooling over the next few months as SST’s are dropping and what seems to be looking like the pacific warm pool getting cooler and the AMO dropping. With ENSO also being closer to La Nina than El Nino right now, I don’t think we’re going to be seeing a clear restoration of an upward trend if you draw the line from 1998.
Even though we had a couple of very hot Summers in 2011 and 2012, I don’t think there’s anything worrisome when it comes to burning up (those hot Summers I mentioned came right on cue when you look at how we seem to get a period of extreme summer heat every 20-30 years).
NeedleFactory says: March 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm
The Headline says down “40%”, but the text nowhere mentions “40%.”
I fear I miss the point.
Herpa-Derp! You’re right, he should have said 41.38%. Good catch! /Sarc
Good info as always, Dr. Roy.
Well, the lower troposphere is somewhere around 270K, so a change of 0.1K means it’s dropped by 0.04%, four hundredths of a percent. As I’ve often said, the amazing thing about the climate is its stability, not the variability …
w.
We also are just coming out of one our coldest March days of all time (high around 10 and low around 0), with perhaps the only reason we didn’t go below 0 being due to UHI. Last year we saw waves of cold potent enough to give us a few snowflakes in May (which the waves continuing into early June). Hopefully this Spring will see some more pleasant temperatures, but all bets are off if those people predicting the return of the Little Ice Age turn out to be accurate.
Ok, the headline’s a little dubious, but about 14 of us have already dutifully pointed that out, so we can move on from an endless discussion about the headline. But this does seem to be pretty significant actually. I mean the temperature could have gone the other way, say, to +.51°C. Then the fear mongering monkeys would crow a bit. What do they have to crow about now?
And with this drop down to 0.17°C we are very close to a ZERO C anomaly. Now that’s significant, I think. If we drop below zero, it’s going to mean something.
Well duh. Of course the temp is going to drop.
Take away a huge high pressure area that over Alaska and part of Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch and the warm air that it provides and of course the temps will drop.
I guess the large anomaly in Jan had to do more with dominate High pressure ridges than anything else….
“Down 40%”?
Come on, you’re better than that…
Interesting that it appears warm air is being pulled up the west side of the Urals and eastern Pacific into the Arctic.
The thing that stands out is that cooling existed in the north, south and tropics. But if you look, the tropics has cooled off significantly over the past three months. Likewise, the southern hemisphere has cooled off significantly over that period as well.
So it would seem that the northern hemisphere is actually what is keeping the number from being negative altogether. Given how cold it has been in the US and Russia, i’m assuming that’s due to warmer temps in Western Europe, Alaska and the arctic.
But it should be noted that those areas, too, are cooling now. March will likely bring another fall. I’m thinking 2014 will be a la nina year and 2015 will be an el nino year.
Russ R. says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:38 pm
““Down 40%” is a meaningless measure for a monthly anomaly, as the 1981-2010 baseline is an arbitrary choice.”
So is the choice of 1951-1980 baseline for GISTEMP, considering that the WMO recommends using a period ending with the last full decade.
Better to ask why GISS can’t move their baseline to match everyone else.
> Nick Stokes says:
> March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
> What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
Last time I checked down was considered negative however on this board I would expect that if the temperature anomaly went up the headline would say so. One of the reasons I follow this blog is the honesty of the major contributors.
Keith
Hal says:
“From NASA:
The heat from warm river waters draining into the Arctic Ocean is contributing to the melting of Arctic sea ice each summer, a new NASA study finds. A research team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory used satellite data to measure the surface temperature of the waters discharging from a Canadian river into the icy Beaufort Sea during the summer of 2012. They observed a sudden influx of warm river waters into the sea that rapidly warmed the surface layers of the ocean, enhancing the melting of sea ice”
Now that is what I call cutting-edge science! When Nordenskiöld made the first voyage through the Northeast Passage 1878-79 he deliberately started late in the season when the warm water from the Siberian rivers had melted the ice along the coast. Check Nordenskiöld, A. E. 1880 “Vegas färd runt Europa och Asien” p. 17 . An English edition is here:
https://archive.org/stream/voyagevegaround00unkngoog#page/n57/mode/2up
How come all “arctic specialists” these days are so abysmally ignorant about previous research? Do they think the Arctic was invented by the IPCC?