[Updated] UAH, straight from the source, Dr. Roy Spencer who announced it on his blog today.
The was a lot of speculation last year that our global temperature would recover from the huge drops last spring. While there has been some recovery, the overall global temperature trend since 1999 has been the subject of much debate. What is not debatable is that the current global temperature anomaly, as determined by a leading authority on global satellite temperature measurements, says we have no departure from “normal” this month. Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers. For those that see only dogma, I expect this will be greeted with jeers. – Anthony
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C
Dr. Roy Spencer
July 3rd, 2009
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051
2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149
2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014
2009 5 0.045 0.046 0.044 -0.166
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics. The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.
NOTE: A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:
(1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures (the current month versus the same calendar month from one year ago) should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.
Sponsored IT training links:
Sign up for 642-384 products including latest 642-661 dumps to pass 642-691 exams even on limited time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tallbloke (13:47:37) :
Wait a minute!
YR…. MON GLOBE NH……. SH TROPICS
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
If TROPICS is included in NH + SH the total anomaly is 0.002
If TROPICS isn’t included in NH + SH the total anomaly is – 0.001!
WUWT?
The global anomaly is calculated by averaging the hemispheric values. NH and SH include the northern and southern half of the Tropics.
ohioholic (14:30:57) :
tallbloke (13:47:37) :
“Wait a minute!
YR…. MON GLOBE NH……. SH TROPICS
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
If TROPICS is included in NH + SH the total anomaly is 0.002
If TROPICS isn’t included in NH + SH the total anomaly is – 0.001!
WUWT?”
I think you got some wires crossed. Either way, I would round it too. 1/1000 is really nothing.
Err, umm, ….
No, you’ve lost me, sorry.
Anyway, I agree, what’s a couple of thousandths of a celsius between friends?
For those unfamiliar with the reason for Robert Wood’s cryptic comment on local warming in London, go here
http://www.pepys.info/fire.html
June 1666 CET 15.0 C 2009 June CET 14.8 C
Hmmm
Tony B
Wait a minute! If temperatures are falling now due to the lower than projected CO2 emissions due to the economic crisis, that says the atmosphere is EXTREMELY sensitive to CO2 levels and we must at ALL COSTS prevent further increases in CO2 levels.
VG (14:41:49) :
I think the big one here, if it happens….is a continuous drop or flatlining with a concurrent Nino for the rest of the year. It will become intolerable for the warmistas
It’ll be crueler than that for them. UAH and RSS will bounce back up for a few months to get them all excited about super el nino arriving, then topospheric temps will dive big style.
Archibald will get his -0.3C this coming winter. That’s my guess anyway.
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
– Just looking at the data above I think there might be a small typo here Anthony.? The total looks all fine, but the coolest anomoly is in the SH of – 0.03 and not the tropics as you report
REPLY: That is written by Dr. Spencer, not me. I won’t change his wording unless he gives the go-ahead. – Anthony
If you take the earth in its globality, we can be certain that it is carbon neutral.
According to Le Chatelier’s Principle; “If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counter-act the imposed change.”, how can such a small change of a trace gas could ever induce a major change in the other parameters?
I know this is a measurement of temperature, but where does the heat go?
1998 was high due to the El Nino. But after 1998, where did the heat go? The anomaly dropped from ~ 0.7 to ~ -2.0 within 2 years after 1998. You would think CO2 would dampen the loss of heat. I think you would see a decrease in the temperature variance as CO2 increased, if you believe C02 is delaying/preventing outgoing radiation.
Either the measurements are not that accurate or the system can dump heat fairly easily. I do believe the satellite measurements over thermometer measurements.
Assuming we can believe the measurements, the heat must remain in the system, or radiated to space. Measurements show that the system isn’t retaining the heat. That leaves the measurements are too variable, or the heat is being radiated to space, and CO2 isn’t preventing it.
timetochooseagain (14:41:18) :
I know about the Mauna Loa Observatory but never really understood why they measure CO2 there, when you have permanent active volcanos in that area of the world.
Tallbloke – my karmageddon lousy mileage ’cause of your ethanol . Maybe ?
The present low temperature level appears over 1 year after the last real La Nina ended. What would happend if a real La Nina started from this temperature level?
So far it seems that a El Nino is on going.. So we will probably see som temperature rise in the next half year, but… The next La Nina.. !!
With each passing month, the message is growing louder that it would be prudent to not make drastic changes until climate change is better understood.
Particularly once it is explained to the public that the cap and trade bill will increase the costs of nearly everything that is consumed by the middle class, including their food.
Hmm no La Nina, in fact that has been running a bit positive for this season, Im betting AMJ sports a plus number, and yet temps are not rising out of control. Wasnt it the La Nina that has stalled global warming? What is their excuse now?? .. they may have to start blaming the sun soon .. hahahahahah.
Robert Wood (14:32:41) :
I was reading Appendix G – Giving Earth the benefit of the doubt:
Shouldn’t we apply the precautionary principle?
It is totally true that the precautionary principle is a societal phenomenon and not one based on sound science… it’s like if we should all get radio and chemo therapy in case one day we get a cancer. We could, but it would do more harm to your health and surely cost the society a whole lot of money and at the end, cancers won’t be irradicated.
Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
tallbloke (12:55:54) :
Does anyone else think John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer are being playful here?
0.001C
Maybe the calc came out at -0.001C but they don’t want us hopping and hooting just yet. perhaps it’s more fun to hear the warmista saying “it’s still positive”.
Wonder what next month will bring. And what RSS will say.
Either way, not many signs of “Joe Romm” and Jim Hansen’s super el nino yet.
<<<<<<<<<Say it ain't so Joe. don't go writing new scriptures for the green bible on this data. Don't tell us your models predicted this.
Why not measure from the high of 1998? Clearly that was the year when, if AGW theory is correct, all heck broke loose. The ‘definite signature etc.
If there is anything in AGW, surely the signature should not evaporate in just one year.
AGW promoters pick the start points to suit their predictions for dramatic effect, why not skeptics?
Climatologist Prof. Richard Lindzen at MIT has now stopped being a global warming skeptic.
Just listened to an interview with him.
http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm?q=lindzen
He is now a committed Global Warming DENIER!.
AGW is an excuse to tax — AGW does not have to actually exist.
A couple years after cap & trade passes, they WILL note that temperature is going down. They will credit cap & trade and make the rules even more costly — see its working, we need MORE of the same.
They will get away with it because the news media is complicit.
Karmageddon. If you want a winter blizzard, invite Algore to come preech fire and brimstone.
What did the finest models from the “science is in” group predict for June? In accounting we like variance reports. detail comparison between projections and actual figures.
What will make CarbaGeddonists happy:
When your car inhales C02 and exhales 02.
The engine will run backwards, we have the PolyTechNology.
Polly want a CarbonCreditCracker?
‘Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?’
I don’t see no slowdown in CO2 rise.
It’s rising like a Swiss watch keeps time.
A real Steady Eddy, that one.
I hate to be a party pooper but the low May-Jun-Jul satellite anomalies were expected. The lag between ENSO events and surface temperatures is less than that of the satellites. Earlier in the year, GISS and Hadley had much lower anomalies relative to RSS and UAH. GISS and Hadley are now refelecting the warmer SST. UAH and RSS should follow suit in the next month or two.
Does carbon armageddon = carbongeddon ?
Lose the first “n” and I think you may have something.
The preliminary estimate for CO2 in 2008 is that emissions still grew. It just grew at a lower rate than previously (1.7% versus 3.5%).
You could think of it in terms of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would have grown by 1.98 ppm but it only grew at 1.96 ppm.