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 —
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?
Count me as +1 for finding the headline a bit histrionic. I love this site specifically because it fights the alarmists with hard evidence, without devolving into kookery. Save the sensationalism for sensational events, please. Remember, we’re being watched by folks who have an active interest in discrediting us.
Please stop it with the percent. If it were 0.01 in jan. and then 0.001 in feb. that is 90% but only 0.09 degrees and totally meaningless. Report it as percent of the range over the past n years if you have to use percent at all. Otherwise, please stick to degrees. CAGW is horse hockey, but the headline is a bit off the wall.
Keith Willshaw says: March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“Last time I checked down was considered negative”
Well, negative is negative; it’s currently +0.17. What if it went to -0.01, say, and then back the following month to +0.17. In percent?
For the math curious:
January anomaly = 0.29; Feb anomaly = 0.17
The percent decrease from Jan->Feb is approximately 40% since 60% of 0.29 is approximately 0.17. Or, 0.17 is 40% lower than 0.29. (With less rounding 42.38%.) So 40% of 0.29 is about equal to the difference in the two temperatures, 0.12.
If the Feb value was 0 instead, it would be 100% lower. If it was negative, it would be a greater than 100% change based on the absolute difference between the two values.
This sort of calculation gets a little weird as you get closer to 0. For example, a decrease from 0.02 to -0.01 would be a 150% decline when the absolute difference is 0.03.
So, I agree with some of the other sentiment in the comments that there should be a better way to express the change in anomaly month to month than as a percentage of the last value. It works for stocks/money but maybe not so much for temperature anomaly. I am drawing a blank on a good replacement off the top of my head.
UAH dropped from 0.291 to 0.172 for an average of 0.232. If it stays this way, 2014 would rank 5th.
RSS dropped from 0.262 to 0.162 for an average of 0.212. If it stays this way, 2014 would rank 11th.
So far, Walter Dnes’ prediction is right on the money. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/12/jli-first-forecasts/
So I have a thought here. I have corresponded some years back with a fellow who claimed he was they guy who for thirty years did the physical data collection of air samples with weather balloons and that research of physical sampling of the atmosphere revealed that the atmosphere is indeed layered and it is that way due to atomic and molecular wieght of gasses found at various altitudes. The higher you go , the lighter the gasses wieght. Ozone being an oddity , which he explained was formed way up high from oxygen ions being fused into O3 by cosmic radiation. This life long body of work was the basis of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere Model we all learned in 9th grade earth science class. He stated that the troposphere was largly oxygen/nitrogen mix due to the fact that oxygen and nitrogen are very very close in atomic wieght. His departure from employment with NASA as contract scientist was over his tenacious argument with his employer that CFC’s could not possibly degrade the ozone layer because they were entirely too heavy to “get up there”…Why do I digress , well this same fellow stated that somewhere arround 1979 satelite generated data sets became fashionable in place of hard physical data collection, and he stated that satelite sampling vertically through the atmosphere is questionable at best and impossible at worste. So, my ire with all this computer modeling and satelite data concerning atmosphere temps is colored by this mans email to me. I will try to pull it up as it was nearly ten years ago, and I forgot his name. Sorry. BUT, I have to say his discourse makes alot of sense. That is why CO2 can not collect in a layer above the troposphere. Unless someone goes out and physically collects samples from the offending CO2 layer, I for one and hard pressed to believe anything coming from the CAGW establishment.
seems strange that Houston had it’s 2nd coldest Feb on record yet the map shows a positive anomaly…
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
==============
What if the moon turned into a pumpkin and was covered with cream cheese icing?
Your imagination is only matched by another commenter here, what’s his name … Moshemer or something like that.
Tim says: @ March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
….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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This seems to indicate the area that are in summer/getting the most sunlight are not warming as much as they were while the Arctic is exporting more heat. (larger differential between the Arctic and outer space)
The Earth is NOT in energy balance so it is always transporting the incoming energy from the sun in the tropics/summer areas to the winter/pole areas and then to outer space.
Looks like a segment of a sinusoidal oscillation to me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2014_v5.png
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
[…] and part of Russia that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch […]
You’re confusing Sarah Palin with Tina Fey.
http://snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp
“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/sarah-palin-ukraine-russia-104110.html
Let’s have a round of applause for Eston, Saskatchewan, a town that is OBVIOUSLY fully paid up in world-wide carbon credits, taking the lead in humanity’s desperate efforts to save the planet from global warming. Take a bow, Eston. Take a bow.
“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.”
(wink)
Quite pleasant here the tropics, thanks. I moved here because it was too cold for me further South, and I am fairly sure it will only get colder. Looks like a good plan so far…
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
“What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
Ask and ye shall receive, Nick:
Nick Stokes Speechless!
Details to follow, Film at 11.
Marcos says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm
seems strange that Houston had it’s 2nd coldest Feb on record yet the map shows a positive anomaly…
>>>>>
Yup. Guess it’s the “adjustment” thingy again.
Creditability of Watts Up (best climate site on the web) down 40%.
This proves even more heat is going to the deep oceans than the prior month /sarc
Blue Sky:
Based on what, exactly?
Make it a good answer. It’s your credibility at stake here.
Nick Stokes says at March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
See all you Nick Stokes quibblers?
We can all see that a change of anomaly described as a percentage is misleading.
But Nick Stokes has succinctly pointed out that such a percentage actually cannot even be calculated when the anomaly crosses the baseline.
Nick Stokes has added value to this thread with his correct criticism of weaknesses.
Just consider, if it wasn’t for the ability of computers to manipulate vast swathes of data and for modern weather equipment to measure down to fractions of a degree then the world wouldn’t have warmed in any meaningful sense in the past centrury at all! Perhaps there are times when fine measurements are more misleading than helpful? I suspect that many people have lost all perspective and will still be shouting global warming if the average increase was .01degree. After all the graph would still slope upwards.
‘Creditability’? lol
(yawn) Up. Down. Up. Down. Same ol’ level sawtooth pattern.
Dang. If we humans are trying to warm the planet, we sure are lousy at it. 🙁
Up. Down. Up. Dow…zzzzzz
M Courtney says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm
“…Nick Stokes has added value to this thread with his correct criticism of weaknesses.”
>>>>>>
Two minuses make a plus—only works in math.
the pause is due to all the heat going into melting the ice. once the ice has gone i’m reliably informed the temps will rise again.lol
6 Mar: Bloomberg: Frigid U.S. Weather Means Highest Power Prices Since ’08: Energy
By Naureen S. Malik, Christine Harvey and Mario Parker
Supplies of natural gas and coal will decline to six-year lows by the end of this month, government data show. The fuels are used to generate 67 percent of the country’s electricity. Wholesale power for use from April…
Natural gas is up 32 percent compared with a year ago, adding to costs for home heating and power generation. Maintenance planned for a third of U.S. nuclear reactors in the next three months, the most for the season in at least 14 years, will further boost reliance on fossil fuels…
Central Appalachian coal, the benchmark U.S. grade, jumped 14 percent since Nov. 1 to $62.63 a ton yesterday on the Nymex after reaching a two-year high of $63.75 on Feb. 26.
Appalachian coal stands to benefit the most from higher natural gas prices, because it’s in the region where the two fuels compete the most, Michael Hsueh, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in London, wrote in a Feb. 28 report.
Power producers will choose to rely on coal-fired units before turning to gas over the next 12 months “unless they run into problems replenishing their already-depleted coal stockpiles,” Angie Storozynski, a New York-based utility analyst with Macquarie Capital USA Inc., wrote in a Feb. 25 report…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/frigid-u-s-weather-means-highest-power-prices-since-08-energy.html
Now, we all know that nothing will silence the niggling, nattering nincompoopy of ‘nuanced Nick’, but the headline will be wonderful when the last wimpering gasp of AGW meme is retired to the ash heaps of history.
This is the first time in many weeks I have seen Nick Stokes make a sensible point. I hate to pile on, but the headline does not do justice to the issue at hand. What would we say if, hypothetically, January’s anomaly was zero and February’s +0.1? An infinite increase in the anomaly? Please change the headline: UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down 0.12C in February.
dbstealey,
The headline is something that Skeptical Science would do. Why can’t we be better?
Uh. Rockford was about 30F below seasonal normals for a few days. I can’t wait for Spring Even a cool spring.
Better to ask why GISS can’t move their baseline to match everyone else.
###########
the GISS baseline is selected for a couple reasons.
1. there method depends on long series. they stitch together series.. its called the reference station method. The goal is to get stations that span the 1951-1980 period
2. the 1951-1980 time period has the largest number of stations for any 30 year time period.
3. the 1951-1980 time period is not very volital. this effects the error in the normals.
So, they dont move the baseline because
A. it might effect the station count
B. it might effect the noise
C. it would make comparisons with their past product difficult
But most importantly they dont change it because You can do that for yourself by re baselining
Its just math
M Courtney says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm
——
Nick Stokes says at March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
See all you Nick Stokes quibblers?
We can all see that a change of anomaly described as a percentage is misleading.
But Nick Stokes has succinctly pointed out that such a percentage actually cannot even be calculated when the anomaly crosses the baseline.
Nick Stokes has added value to this thread with his correct criticism of weaknesses.
===================
M Courtney,
You make a valid point, but I already knew that. Just playing by the most current rules considering the goal posts are forever changing as are the rules. Find myself caught up in a fool’s game on the green field.
Stokes did add value to this thread from one point of view.
Davis Ball,
This one looks even more like a sinusoidal segment to my eye:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tlt_update_feb2014-1.png
M Courtney writes:
He hasn’t pointed out anything. He just made a witty rhetorical question.
Look at your own post. If it weren’t for your explanation, what would be left to Stokes’ post!?
Anyway, you are wrong. Let me give an example:
2014 1 +0.291
2014 2 -0.005
(0.291 – (-0.005))/0.291 ~ 1.17
It could be said the the anomaly went down by roughly 117%. Is it misleading, yes. Impossible to calculate, no.
The value Stokes added to this thread is hard to measure.
Gary Hladik says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:59 pm
(yawn) Up. Down. Up. Down. Same ol’ level sawtooth pattern.
Dang. If we humans are trying to warm the planet, we sure are lousy at it. 🙁
Up. Down. Up. Dow…zzzzzz
Gary,
Perfect. 17 years and 6 months of ‘megatons of global industrial CO2 pollution’ added to the atmosphere that should have ‘cook’d it with hiroshima bombs worth of added heat’ and……..
nothing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/
A wiggle up here. A wiggle down there. Net effect: Zero.
That is the point!
Hmmm: 17 years, 6 months: Net Effect equals Zero.
What percentage would that be? Nick? Nick? Buehler???
eyesonu says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:16 pm
My comment would be valid only with consideration to M Courtney’s comment compiled with Stokes. Stokes alone would be BS.
We are nearing the time in which a test will be put on the claims of solar magnetic having a significant influence on climate, particularly temperature. The Russian physicist Abdussamatov and the late Theodore Landscheidt ( American ) believe(d) and Landscheidt made the prediction in the year 2000 just before his untimely death that the sun was going to enter its current phase of magnetic decline and cause marked global cooling. Abdussamatov has claimed that the oceans have thermal inertia contained within from higher solar magnetic cycles that heated the tropical oceans that last 14 years past the last high peak ( cycle 23 ). So within the next year or so if the suns magnetic field continues in decline towards a Dalton or Maunder minimum, we, according to these scientists should begin to see an unmistakable decline in global temperatures lasting through whatever period the sun remains in a minimized state.
There seems to be some credibility emerging concerning this as the last prediction of an ENSO event by NOAA’s models failed and there is another prediction of ENSO this year. Will that be like what we saw in the warm phase of the PDO or will it mimick a Modokai ENSO event where the Kelvin wave fizzles half way across the Pacific or will it simply not materialize again, for a second time, after being called for by NOAA? Landscheidt also believed that ENSO was caused by the solar magnetic active cycles vs. weak and so much less ENSO events would be expected in the future according to him….and the ENSO events are an important physical process in causing the global temperatures to elevate and remain warm with repeated episodes such as we witnessed during the last warm phase of the PDO that ran from 1977-2007.
For those folks flummoxed by the “down 40%” in the headline, it was just an effect of having too many things to do and dashing off a headline. I simply changed it to the anomaly value drop figure from last month to this month.
Apologies to anyone who got their underwear folded, spindled, or mutilated over it.
Despairing Warmunistas Commit Mass Suicide ?
Nick Stokes says: (March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm)
“What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?”
Let’s assume the anomaly for February, 2014 is -0.05 deg. C, so it would be down 0.34 deg C from January (which was 0.29 deg C).
The headline would then be: UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down 117% in February
Or am I missing something?
Oops, got here late.
As always, here’s a link to the preliminary sea surface temperature data update for February 2014:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/preliminary-february-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
BTW, what ever happened to the always entertaining 3rd order polynomial fit to the data?
Anthony, you just eliminated the validity of ‘40%’ of the posts here, whose authors got their ‘knickers in a twist’ over your hurried headline. And now, what I would like to know is, what is the anomaly-free temperature of the planet? Do we know-not-muchers take it to be .17C above 14.5C?
Steven Mosher says: “2. the 1951-1980 time period has the largest number of stations for any 30 year time period.”
I believe you’ll find that CRUTEM uses 1961-1990 as base years for that reason. I suspect you’ll find that GISS standardized on 1951-1980 because they used those years in their first paper on the topic, which was the Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), and they’ve never bothered to change them.
Regards
The title was inconvenient. But it is not a big issue, I judge.
We can be grateful to those who are willing to point out the errors that creep in when we dash something off. It let’s us dash things off and focus on the big issues with confidence. Someone else will catch the errors.
This is why group-think is bad. Thank goodness WUWT is not Real Climate.
I try to defend debate rather than any particular individual. And the significance of month on month updates is more worthy of debate, in my opinion.
Appreciate the title change. Thank you.
Bravo Mr. Watts
tty says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Hal says:
[…]
How come all “arctic specialists” these days are so abysmally ignorant about previous research? Do they think the Arctic was invented by the IPCC?
——————————————————————————————————————-
Quite simply, they reject as anecdotal any record that can’t be tortured into a measured value, regardless of how compelling it might be.
So, for example, you might find fully documented and autheticated records of the Inuit growing avocados in Alaska between (say) 1100 and 1500, alongside archeological remains of the orchards, but that would not be valid evidence of past warmth.
That propensity to reject anything from outside your own “specialism” used to be regarded as a sure sign of a poorly educated man. Now it’s considered normal.
The difference between the map and Houston’s thermometer readings is curious. I’d be interested to hear a learned explanation. There probably is one, and we shouldn’t leap to the cynical conclusions that tend to spring to mind. (Or my mind, at least.)
I tend to focus more on where the anomalies are positioned, rather than on an average for the entire planet. Having all the warm air rush north through Europe into the arctic, when there was no sunshine in the arctic, would seem to lose a lot of heat to the arctic night. (Having the cold air remain up in the arctic would have meant there was less heat to lose up there.) Having the cold sweep south and freeze the Great Lakes and increase snow-cover over areas where there is sunshine would seem to increase the sunlight reflected away, and have a cooling effect. And so on and so forth.
You miss a lot if you focus on the world-wide average temperature without studying the details and dynamics.
The UAH and RSS datasets are both derived from satellite measurements, but show significant differences in terms of the medium term trends. No sooner have we just about exhausted the discussion on the RSS having a zero trend back to September 1996, then out comes UAH, which shows a zero trend only as far back as August 2008.
The UAH trend from September 1996 to date is 0.1 deg C / decade.
Anyone have any bright ideas to explain the difference, and which one is more accurate (if either)?
The telling figure from the chart above is the tropical anomaly – it’s now Negative!
Thanks Watts. The title change is appreciated.
M Courtney writes:
You are right, but I still stand by my previous post. Stokes has hardly said anything substantial.
That’s a wonderful thing to know! But then why did you tried to defend Stokes? No one has censored him or even insinuated to censor him. Most people aren’t even systematically ignoring his comments! They actually gave replies, didn’t they?
[My discussion of the Stoke’ post affair is over. I will now talk about the UAH global anomaly]
Well, anyway. I tried to calculate the proportion of feb’s that were colder than preceding jan’s in uah. Turned out that 55% of feb’s are warmer. But as there is lots of noise, I can’t rule out 50-50.
It is not really something anyone can predict.
Meanwhile, In Australia, BOM releases this piece of propaganda.
They are going to look awfully stupid if the temperatures do start to drop. 🙂
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/state-of-the-climate-2014_low-res.pdf?ref=button
Would make more sense to say down x stddevs.
Things are a bit cooler here in Brisbane. Temperatures are barely nudging 30. Autumn has started, but nice and sunny here today. My cat is playing happily in the garden. The girls are still wearing skimpy tops and minuscule shorts that almost cover their bottoms. Tell me again, why is Global Warming a Bad Thing?
Talking about temperature in percent is non-physical unless you are using Kelvins !
One things for sure. It’s been a very long time now since there was ANY warming. This cannot be explained by Greenhouse Theory.
If it takes -4 to [tip] us into an Ice Age – 2019 looks favourite.
Awww Shucks.
Just Asking.
stevek says:
March 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Would make more sense to say down x stddevs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes
However WUWT is also for those without training above a high school education and at least in the USA most people haven’t the foggiest what a standard deviation is or have even heard of the term.
It always is smart to remember we have an unseen unheard ‘Peanut Gallery’ who are the people we really want to get information out to.
The best way to quantify changes is in Kelvin and as a % change in absolute temperature, I think. But then those numbers would not be scary and they alone do not quantify energy content which is of the utmost interest here.
The metric most valuable in knowing if the earth is warming or cooling is a precise (as precise as possible) measurement of frozen water.
A global temperature is indeed very difficult to calculate. Relative changes in global temperature can best be approximated based on satellite data.
But again, temperature is not the same as energy. Moist air at temperature x holds more energy than dry air at that same temperature. The energy content differences is very significant. So temperature is not the end all metric. If our climate is less moist, for example, the temperatures might show an increase, but that does not mean there is more energy in the area being measured. Said another way, a higher temperature might also be associated with less energy than another measurement of lower temperature!
So this “Global Temperature” metric is not as meaningful as some seem to think.
Still, I like seeing the temperatures not cooperate with the AGW prognosticators!
Mario Lento says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“Wow the tropics are a cooling! Anything to do with a slight La Nina – to La Nada condition?”
Two things: On average, the tropics tend not to change that much (I experienced the same temperatures in Lagos, Nigeria in 1964 as I did in 1998 and I note it is still about 28-29C.). I believe this due to Willis’s Thermostat phenomenon which puts a ceiling on maximum temperature. Second, a cooling tropics is much more worrisome if it persists for one reason or another. Even the “Thermostat” doesn’t have the tools necessary to limit movement in this direction (it can retard it by going clear sky, but after that there is little that can be done). Since the cooler tropics remain warmer than the poles, heat will continue to flow away from the tropics. If this, the earth’s central heating system, cools for an extended period, we will see its warming effect on the poles diminish until polar amplification finally then goes the other way, and remember we are only talking a couple of degrees here. The planet has seen this before! It ain’t unprecedented.
Gary Pearse says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm
+++++++++++
Agreed – Thank you Gary.
The anomaly map sure looks like recharge discharge in the Arctic. An entirely natural consequence of La Nina recharged heat making its way up North to be sent into oblivion back out to space.
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
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…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, for people who get their news from comedians this probably comes as a surprise, but Sarah never said that. The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit (reference http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp).
Like Mitt Romney said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
This winter in the NH has been a real eye opener for me.
As l now think am beginning to understand the weather patterns that would cause the NH to slip in and out of ice ages.
[snip wildly off topic – Anthony]
heysuess says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Do we know-not-muchers take it to be .17C above 14.5C?
The real average temperature in February is about 12.0 C and about 15.8 C in July. See:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
So for February, an anomaly of 0.17 C means about 12.17 C. (So for July, an anomaly of 0.17 means about 15.97 C.)
[snip – rephrase that buddy, that was uncalled for -Anthony]
“Any news that counters the claims of the warmists tends to help keep them in check. “
Mario Lento, today at 12:42pm.
Bull’s eye!
THAT gets to the heart of the matter. THAT is why this thread is worthwhile.
Keepin’ those dirty AGW rats in the dark corners! Yeah!
Compare:
i.e. 0.98 deg/70 years – by UAH Global Temperature Feb. 2014
With
The Lewis and Crok exposition – Climate less sensitive to Carbon Dioxide than most models suggest
Remarkable!
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
———————————————————————————
An appropriate headline would be “Catastrophic Global Warming is Officially Dead”.
But we may have to wait a few more years. In the meantime your criticism of percent makes sense.
The Central England Temperature for Feb was +1.8C above long term mean yet the UAH lower trop anomaly has almost all of England in the -0.5 to -1.5 C band. Same basis period.
Obviously these data runs are derived from different ways of measuring and are not sampling the exact same layers in the atmosphere, but clearly for this month of Feb the UAH is not accurate as a proxy for surface temperature as far as England is concerned and whilst not having looked at the data in detail, I doubt for western Europe as a whole which has had a generally very mild winter.
UAH continues to show the 3 to 4 year cycle on the 13 month running mean.
wbrozek, Thank you.
0.172C
Is there is a single thing on the planet that would notice this amount of warming?
People are freaking out about 0.172C?
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Keith Willshaw says: March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“Last time I checked down was considered negative”
Well, negative is negative; it’s currently +0.17. What if it went to -0.01, say, and then back the following month to +0.17. In percent?
**************************************************
I get -106% then +1800%. This is related to why my investments are going down in value.
Chip Javert says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Box of Rocks says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm
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…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, for people who get their news from comedians this probably comes as a surprise, but Sarah never said that. The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit (reference http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp).
Like Mitt Romney said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Palin actually said: “They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm
However WUWT is also for those without training above a high school education and at least in the USA most people haven’t the foggiest what a standard deviation is or have even heard of the term.
It always is smart to remember we have an unseen unheard ‘Peanut Gallery’ who are the people we really want to get information out to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Anthony: apologies for breaking house rules and earning myself a “snip”; attempting to rephrase without losing the essence of my thought)
The “little people” are indeed fortunate to have such a gifted communicator.
Actually, I don’t think the problem is with the technical capability of the “little people”. Rather, it appears to be the failure of the academy that somehow allowed a bunch of PhD dudes (lots without science PhDs) to hijacked the scientific methodology (as known to Feynman, Einstein) and the concept of peer reviewed publication.
I doubt the “peanut gallery” is going to fix this problem for you. Just saying…
Scarface says:
March 5, 2014 at 2:56 pm
> BTW, what ever happened to the always entertaining 3rd order polynomial fit to the data?
I haven’t seen that for several months. I suspect too many people took it seriously and looked at its trend.
Re: 40%
Thanks to our host for fixing that gaffe. Kudos to Nick Stokes for the best dope slap comment. Understated but very much to the point.
Mario Lento says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm
For the first part, the replacement headline would be UAH Global Temperature Anomaly Down by 0.12 K in February. I have no trouble with that.
As for the second part, I’ll pass. A percentage relative absolute zero would make the difference between winter and summer misleading. People (and plants, minerals, etc.) can see a much larger impact to a doubling of temperature than a doubling of light we typically see or sounds we typically hear.
Phil. says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Chip Javert says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm.
…Palin actually said: “They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She also pointed out (in that foreign policy interview) that they share a maritime boarder. Unless I’m mistake, all three statements (i.e.: maritime boarder, neighbors, see from Alaska) are accurate (the Bearing Sea’s Diamonde islands are about 2 miles apart – one is USA territory and the other is Russian).
My issue was an off-topic and deliberately inflammatory political statement has no place in an analytical science discussion.
Chip Javert says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:40 pm
…..I doubt the “peanut gallery” is going to fix this problem for you. Just saying…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The people in the “peanut gallery” VOTE. They also talk to other people and if they hurt enough (home foreclosures or high heating bills) they will turn on the entrenched political parties.
You can see the start of that in the UK with UKIP and in the USA with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.
Therefore it pays to educate those people and make sure they have the information they need to make informed decisions when they vote.
It is called waking the sleeping giant.
Thanks for the change, Anthony. I look for the UAH anomaly every month–it’s the key metric I track. So I don’t need much more than “UAH Anomaly for Feb is [x]”. The number speaks for itself, at least for aficionados.
I didn’t mean to imply it’s uninteresting or not worth tracking, not at all. But if we say it’s down 40% at 1.7 C, if it goes back to 2.6 C, which it easily could, then the alarmists will bash WUWT for concealing that “the anomaly leapt 50% last month”.
Now, if the anomaly went negative, and stayed there for three months, yes, that would be noteworthy. That would warrant some drama in the headline.
What about the wet bulb effect? Would the energy (or lack thereof) required to precipitate a -0.1 C drop in the tropics be more significant than a 0.1 C rise in a colder subtropical region? I heard that the amount of energy required to raise the temperature from -30 to -29 was much less than the energy needed to raise the temperature from +29 to +30. Has anyone on/in this thread heard of anything like this?
The difference between UAH and RSS is probably due to the larger area that UAH measures. Since this area is at the poles it probably means there has been a warming trend at the poles. Since RSS did not measure the poles when they were cooler that means their anomaly would have been higher than UAH. Now, with the recent warming missing from their data they come out lower than UAH. I suppose one could look at the detailed data to get a better idea if this theory is right.
One might ask if anyone really cares about the polar areas. The difference isn’t that big and since almost no one lives there, does it really matter?
Steven Kopits says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Even then we’d need a few caveats. UAH reports anomalies from the 1981-2010 average. RSS uses the 20 (21?) year average 1978-1998. Plus, the two data sets have diverged a bit, so perhaps we should wait for both datasets to be negative for a few months.
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm
…The people in the “peanut gallery” VOTE. They also talk to other people and if they hurt enough (home foreclosures or high heating bills) they will turn on the entrenched political parties.
You can see the start of that in the UK with UKIP and in the USA with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.
Therefore it pays to educate those people and make sure they have the information they need to make informed decisions when they vote.
It is called waking the sleeping giant.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are correct – some Europeans are indeed voting against the pain of high energy costs (Germany’s average cost is 300% that of the USA). However, this appears to be a vote for lower costs EVEN IF it increases global warming.
In any event, AGW global warming will NOT be settled at the ballot box; it will be settled by mother nature & reported by science. Leaving aside the disturbing concept of deciding science by vote, it should be noted that AGW is (almost) never explicitly on the ballot. When it is (e.g.: CA voter initiatives), AGW appears to be winning.
Yes, science needs to communicate observable facts to the general population, but science and the academy need to clean up their own house. Good luck with waking up your giant, but be careful: that giant might look at the current academic & science community and decide it strongly resembles the Augean Stables.
Am wondering if the cooling in the tropics is linked to the jet stream which has been rather powerful and southern tracking during this winter. During January a very powerful jet stream started to form in the eastern Pacific and flowed all the way across to europe. Also with there been a strong and southern tracking jet flowing across Africa and to the far east. lt does seem to have had a noticeable cooling effect on the NW lndian Ocean between Africa and India.
“Note, my original headline number was unintentionally misleading …”
~ Dr. Roy Spencer ~
======
Yeah, right. Nothing unintentional, at all. And no, not technically correct. {rolls eyes}
Nick Stokes says at March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
January 2008 – 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
Posted on February 19, 2008 by Anthony Watts
For all four metrics the global average ∆T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: – 0.6405°C
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
Ahh, it wasn’t Dr. Roy. I should have guessed who …
Measurements mean nothing without properly calculated error margins also reported.
Thanks, Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer. I have updated your graphs in my pages.
Mario Lento says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:57 pm
[snip wildly off topic – Anthony]
++++++++
I hope I did not write anything offensive. I don’t understand what was off topic, but respect mods’ decision to keep us on track.
Better to report it as Dr. Spencer did in his own headline: “…anomaly for February, 2014 is +0.17 deg. C, down 0.12 deg C from January”, or just “…down .12 deg C from January”. An anomaly is relative to a long-term average. The current headline is also misleading since it appears to suggest a trend dipping negative to the baseline rather than saying that it is just down a squinch since last month.
Ah, I see I’ve alarmed my spell-checker. Didn’t know that one did you?
Nick Stokes says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
What would the headline be if the anomaly went negative?
———————————————————————————
Hallelujah, hallelujah halle..luuluu..JAHHH. I think that would cover it.
Blue Sky says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:53 pm
“”Creditability””
———————————–
You wouldn’t be Italian by any chance?
Marcos says:
It was cold in the NH breaking all kinds of records again. Yes the arctic was “warmer” and parts of Europe–and California–but come on, with the record bone breaking cold we still get a positive anomaly? Is there something wrong with the satellites? Are we missing something in this picture–a crucial bit of insight that has escaped us all? I say yes…because I say we’re colder–OK I’m not a satellite and I’m Not Christy and Spencer–so I don’t’ know what I’m talking about, But Marco is making a good point–place by place, the temps are not being recorded properly…or something,, Boy its maddening.
So even after Willis E’s comment I still see folks arguing about the “40%” thing with recalculations etc. etc.
Willis seems to be in a good mood and refrained from further comment.
Temperature reports using F and C are “interval” scales. Had Roy reported in F rather than C, the ratio being reported would differ. Thus, wisely, Willis used the K scale that is a ratio scale and presented a correct number. Some say math or “maths” is hard, but this is just arithmatic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And to John EF at 7:06 pm
The headline is not attributed to Roy Spencer. A. Watts has taken credit.
March 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm | AndyG55 says:
My wife and I were just commenting how summer in Queensland feels quite cool this year … we’ve only turned on the AC for 3 nights to take the edge off the humidity.
I assumed the 40% headline was an ironic comment on the usual doom-monger presentation. You certainly rattled another NS’s cage (although his response was stylish). Keep up the good work please. Some of us get (most of) the jokes.
With La Nina on the way it could continue downhill for a while.
So what we appear to have across a little more than one unit of climate (35 yrs) is a variation of a little over 1.3C between individual data points and a variation of around 0.75C on a 13 month rolling average.
The system appears to be self-correcting, despite occasional strong forcing events.
No evidence at all of runaway climate change.
It would be interesting to see if the data still held the same features in 2100, however I will not be around to witness that.
Day By Day says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Marcos says:
seems strange that Houston had it’s 2nd coldest Feb on record yet the map shows a positive anomaly…
It was cold in the NH breaking all kinds of records again. Yes the arctic was “warmer” and parts of Europe–and California–but come on, with the record bone breaking cold we still get a positive anomaly? Is there something wrong with the satellites? Are we missing something in this picture–a crucial bit of insight that has escaped us all? I say yes…because I say we’re colder–OK I’m not a satellite and I’m Not Christy and Spencer–so I don’t’ know what I’m talking about, But Marco is making a good point–place by place, the temps are not being recorded properly…or something,, Boy its maddening.
——————————————————————————————————————
It really is as simple as the US being such a small part (about 2%) of the earth’s surface. So all the cold there can be offset in a global average by fairly mild warmth elsewhere. Say the whole of the US is averaging 10 deg C below “normal” right now, that only needs 0.2 deg C positive anomaly over the rest of the world to cancel out.
Which is one of the reasons that a “global average temperature” is just as meaningless for people in their day-to-day lives as a “global average income” or “global average” anything else would be – the part of the globe we each inhabit (and so, is of immediate importance to us) is miniscule!
Anthony Watts says (March 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm): “For those folks flummoxed by the “down 40%” in the headline, it was just an effect of having too many things to do and dashing off a headline.”
Cheer up: it could have been much worse. You might have put it in terms of Hiroshima bombs not detonated in the atmosphere. 🙂
Chip Javert says:@ March 5, 2014 at 6:47 pm
….Yes, science needs to communicate observable facts to the general population, but science and the academy need to clean up their own house. Good luck with waking up your giant, but be careful: that giant might look at the current academic & science community and decide it strongly resembles the Augean Stables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the metaphor.
I (a chemist) am one of those who is suggesting that the government DEFUND Academia and science. So you are a bit late.
Prof. Arthur Roberts (of the physics dept. the University of Iowa)) wrote
“Take Away Your Billion Dollars” (published in Physics Today 1, (7) 1946)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/roberts/roberts1947.htm
His reasoning still stands. Government funding of science is really quite new.
So as I said time to DEFUND Science and Academia. {:>)
Rhys Jaggar says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:09 pm
So what we appear to have across a little more than one unit of climate (35 yrs) is a variation of a little over 1.3C between individual data points and a variation of around 0.75C on a 13 month rolling average.
The system appears to be self-correcting, despite occasional strong forcing events…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes the Holocene has been a quiet and stable interglacial for the most part excepting the rocky start.
This graph shows how stable the climate has been despite a 9% reduction in solar energy in the NH since the Holocene Optimum ~11 ka ago.
That should be enough to drive a stake through the heart of the CAGW beast but alas it is a zombie that no amount of science or logic will kill. Maybe a full blow glaciation and a mile of ice sitting on Hansen’s home would kill the beast but I doubt it.
Take a normal sheet of graph paper. Make the X axis time in years from 1979 to 2014. Make the Y axis temperature from –80C to +60C both surface temperatures achievable on Earth. Now using a normal HB pencil draw a line at 15 degrees Centigrade level from 1979 to 2014. ALL the anomalies are inside that line. Is this variation something to get hysterical about?
I predict the next few temperature anomalies are going to plunge as the Earth has to digest (melt) all that snow and ice it made in the northern hemisphere during the epic winter before the atmosphere can warm much. Melting ice takes a lot of heat and takes place at 32F, and 32F will be a magnet for temperatures until the ice is gone. Here in the Milwaukee area the average high is 40F this time of year, but we’re in an icebox at this moment and the 40s don’t look too likely for a while.
It’s like if you swallowed a big chunk of ice, your metabolism would still be cranking away at 100watts but instead of rejecting that heat outward where it would warm the surroundings, circulation to the skin is dropped and that 100 watts is directed inward towards melting the ice. The local surroundings don’t get much of that 100 watts until the ice is gone.
I live just outside Huntsville……..I’m always proud to see the data they produce. (Not a bad hockey team either).
This graph does not seem like it should be on Wuwt? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/tlt_update_feb2014-1.png
Scott says: @ March 6, 2014 at 4:09 am
I predict the next few temperature anomalies are going to plunge as the Earth has to digest (melt) all that snow and ice…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well it certainly is not warm here in mid North Carolina!
Normal for today is min 37 °F and Max 60 °F. Yesterday (after the usual 2 °F increase in temp. ) min 28 °F and Max 46 °F — BRRRRrrrr.
In March of 2004, ten years ago for the first week of March the MIN | MAX. were:
69°F. | 28°F.
71°F. | 53°F.
77°F. | 53°F.
82°F. | 48°F.
78°F. | 59 °F.
73°F. | 62°F.
71°F. | 42°F.
In April of 2004 we had 2 days at 91F and 4 days at 93F to give an idea of the contrast to this spring.
It is now 29°F @ 8:00 AM As I said BRRRRrrr
Michael Whittemore says:March 6, 2014 at 4:46 am
It’s the same data as the first graph, presented in bars instead of points connected with a line.
Steve Keohane says:March 6, 2014 at 5:33 am
What I meant was that it so clearly shows a 30 year climate change of warming. There has not even been any El Nino’s during this supposed hiatus either, yet look at the unajusted satellite data.
No, that graph does not show 30 years of warming. It shows the same halt in warming that the other graphs of GST datasets show.
Nonsense. There have been five El Ninos during the most recent period of static global surface temperatures: 1998, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010. What on earth are you jabbering about?
Joe says:
“..the part of the globe we each inhabit (and so, is of immediate importance to us) is miniscule!”
Thanks, that is helpful and I know you are correct. Maybe especially this winter–but in the past few it has been China, Asia, India, Russia, and Europe that had the bone breaking cold week after week and the anomaly still come out positive for the NH. And that is no so minuscule!
If you go here:
http://www.tranecds.com/COMMERCIAL/DNA/View.aspx?i=1250
you can download an electronic psychrometric chart that lets you play with wet bulb, dry bulb, enthalpy, grains of moisture, and all the other stuff that’s about the energy content of air. And yes, you are correct, it can make a HUGE difference.
JJ says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:58 am
My bad there has been one El Nino. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png
Michael Whittemore thinks there has been ONE el nino since 1998. What is this guy smoking? Climate alarmism is the discipline where you’re able to invent whatever fact you like.
Michael Whittemore says:
March 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png
The link you have posted is incorrect and fails their own criteria.
At least 5 successive months that are at least 0.5c above normal are classified El Nino events.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
There have been 5 El Nino events since 1997/98 inclusive.
1997/98
2002/03
2004/05
2006/07
2009/10
I see what the link has done recently, only including El Nino events with at least 5 successive months above 1.0 c. That is wrong, the definition is above 0.5c and they have missed out the weak El Nino events deliberately.
JJ says:
March 6, 2014 at 6:58 am
Michael Whittemore says:
————————————————
JJ, you said El Ninos, while Whittemore is saying El Nino’s. See the difference? It was so obvious the proverbial caveman would have picked up on it.
Your worse, there have been five El Ninos during the most recent period of static global surface temperatures. Once again: 1998, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010.
The link he has posted is fine, it just doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with El Nino. The values presented don’t fail the El Nino criteria, they are inapplicable to the El Nino criteria.
Kenny says: “I live just outside Huntsville……..I’m always proud to see the data they produce. (Not a bad hockey team either).”
Just outside Huntsville? Or just inside?
So am I meant to believe you guys? with no links to science? or NOAA? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13 ??
It appears I am wrong, there has been the El Nino’s you have all explained. The 2005 one seems to not get much of a mention from what I can find, but yes over 0.5 for 5 consecutive seasons. I also found this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4
US is experiencing record cold winter but greater cooling is happening in the tropics. Northern Hemisphere cooled by 0.05 C in Feb. vs. last year. Tropics cooled by 0.3 C in Feb. and 0.41 C in Jan. vs. last year.
Yes, it does appear that you are wrong.
And being wrong is one of those gifts that keeps on giving, isn’t it?
Seriously … in one post you demand links to NOAA science, and in the next you point to a youtube video by the idiot Cook?
Gee.
So we are expected to “believe” you just because “you” copy a link to a single NOAA report that is now almost 1-1/2 years old? yet you decide to call that “science” when the actual true scientist who DOES do the “real climate science” releases a report for the entire earth only two days old?
JJ says:
March 6, 2014 at 10:11 pm
Here is a link to the paper. http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=52
RACookPE1978 says:
March 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Yes. I linked you the science that I had found, it was only looking at Anomalies of La Nina and El Nino. My mistake was pointed out.
Since the Great Purging of the Thermometers, I fundamentally distrust the Global Average Temperature.