May 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.53 deg. C.
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm: +0.53 deg. C for May, 2010. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.Tropics picked up a bit, but SSTs indicate El Nino has ended and we may be headed to La Nina. NOAA issued a La Nina Watch yesterday.
In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them.
As a reminder, three months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same as in Version 5.2. ALSO…we have added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2009 7 0.429 0.189 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.235 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.293 0.710
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.251 0.472 0.030 -0.068
2009 2 0.247 0.564 -0.071 -0.045
2009 3 0.191 0.324 0.058 -0.159
2009 4 0.162 0.316 0.008 0.012
2009 5 0.140 0.161 0.119 -0.059
2009 6 0.043 -0.017 0.103 0.110
2009 7 0.429 0.189 0.668 0.506
2009 8 0.242 0.235 0.248 0.406
2009 9 0.505 0.597 0.413 0.594
2009 10 0.362 0.332 0.393 0.383
2009 11 0.498 0.453 0.543 0.479
2009 12 0.284 0.358 0.211 0.506
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.293 0.710
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Dr Spencer, do you expect the lower tropospheric temperature to drop further from the peak earlier this year given El Nino has ended and we may be headed into a La Nina? Also what type of lag time would you expect between the SST temp drop and the lower tropospheric temperature drop.
I realize this is hand waving so I am only expecting a SWAG.
Thank goodness this warming is almost done. A record year would not be good for the PR.
Just past apogee.
=========
The atmospheric temperatures will likely lag the SSTs by several months if past behavior is any indication.
crosspatch says:
June 4, 2010 at 9:25 am
The atmospheric temperatures will likely lag the SSTs by several months if past behavior is any indication.
_________________________________________________________________
Thank you for answering my question Crosspatch.
The preliminary May 2010 OI.v2 SST anomalies show that global SST anomalies dropped 0.062 deg C in May and that NINO3.4 SST anomalies dropped a whopping 0.72 deg C. Weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies are below zero at -0.18 deg C.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/06/preliminary-may-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html
The official monthly data should be posted on the NOAA NOMADS website on Monday. I’ll update the ocean basins then.
Cold wet rain here in NE Oregon- May’s been a bust. I’d say Nina’s here….
30 years of records? Not a significant sample size.
So the globe is warmer by 0.2 deg C than in 1988. I can live with that.
This has bothered me for some time: “PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.”
So, exactly, how long have these things been aloft? How stable is the calibration over time? Who did the calibration in the first place? Who validated the use of these for space operations? Have any of them ever been brought back down and recalibrated?
@crosspatch – there is not much lag between SST and CRU/UAH record:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998
With the end of 1998 Nino, all datasets fell down simultaneously, lagging the NINO index which peaked in 97/98.
Does anyone know how to interpret the Unisys SST anomaly Normal/Inv. plots?
There is no information on the Unisys site for these SST contour plots.
The Normal Plot anomaly off of Paraguay does not make sense from the SST Data plots.
I have checked the SST data for end of May for all the years in the archive, but nothing seems to be abnormal to earn this area such a large anomaly.
Henry: (at 09:46)
how many years constitutes a correct sample size (and give your reference) ?
Douglas DC says:
June 4, 2010 at 9:41 am
NW Calif. – we are soaked here. They keep forecasting dry weather the past month, but it never gets here.
The Guardian posted a compilation of debunked Ice-melt alarmism. My comment:
As a matter of etiquette I shouldn’t call Hansen a dirtbag, but Vidal also linked to Hansen condemning “politicised media,” so I couldn’t help it.
There is lag, but Nino peaked in January, so we’re already worked off some of that lag which is why after an ugly March number the April/May have been somewhat better.
A sceptic’s interpretation of this latest data from Dr Spencer: The graph, when viewed from right to left, clearly shows a downward trend in temperature over the 30 year period.
Keep up the good work.
MJK
A statistically significant sample size is dependant on the data and the sample size itself. Going from memory from a Design of Experiments course, I believe 25 – 30 is (barely) enough. The larger the sample size, the higher the level of confidence in the variability in the solution. If I’m not mistaken, the text we used stated something to the effect of:
A sample size of 25 – 30 maybe usable but larger sizes (preferably) in the 1000’s provides a better level of confidence based on the variability in the sample set.
Someone whose expertise in statistics should be able to provide a better answer.
Bueller, Bueller, anybody?
I prefer the RSS data:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) analysis of the same satellite data that UAH uses shows that May had a temperature anomaly of 0.588° C, not 0.53° C.
And a warming trend of 0.160° C/decade, not +0.14 deg. C per decade:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series
RSS was the organization which found the errors in data processing that UAH had been doing from 1989 to 2006 – the UAH analysis which kept showing “the GCMs are all wrong” for so long, despite repeated requests from other researchers to look closer and see if they were doing anything wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Reconciliation_of_satellites.2C_radiosondes_and_climate_models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Science_Program#Temperature_trends_in_the_lower_atmosphere_.28SAP_1.1.29
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
Good thing UAH is not in Virginia – the AG might go after them for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
Again:
There has been no significant warming from 1990 till the present.
The temperatures of 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 would have been the same or even higher then the temperatures in 1990 if Pinatubo wouldn’t have erupted (there was a long El Niño from end 1991 to in 1995).
Also El Chichon dimmed the impact of the big El Niño of 1982-1983 and probably had a cooling effect for a couple of years after that.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air_thumb.png
@Juraj V.
According to Dr. Roy Spencer:
Alec Rawls…
I’m sitting here laughing my you know what off…
A dirtbag is um er um
cough cough choke… er um
As Shakespeare once said so eloquently
A rose by any other name, is still a rose…
But in the case of Hansen the smell is more like fertilizer rather than a rose. 🙂
[SNIP – I’ve told you before to tone it down. While I don’t agree with what Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann says, I won’t have you turn their persona into Nazi comparisons. Either clean it up or stop commenting on my blog – next comment like that will earn you a ban. – Anthony]
So what do we make of this? We have found that the (apparent) onset of La Nina has improved fishing conditions here in Fiji, and my records do show some correlation between the Southern Oscillation Index and our Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for albacore – something that Willis, as an old fisherman may be interested in. If there is any interest, please do email.
Look at the ‘sea sub-surface’ tab http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
The map for the 5 days ending 24 May shows a large volume of cooler than normal water below the surface of the tropical Pacific, with anomalies more than 4°C cooler than normal for this time of the year. The central sub-surface has cooled a further 1°C from two weeks ago.