June 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.44 deg. C
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm, +0.44 deg. C for June, 2010, but it appears the El Nino warmth is waning as a La Nina approaches.
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 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.552 0.321 0.475
For those keeping track of whether 2010 ends up being a record warm year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 30 June being +0.64 C in 1998 compared with +0.56 C for 2010. (John Christy says that the difference is not statistically significant.) As of 30 June 2010, there have been 181 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 122 (two-thirds) of them.
As a reminder, four 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.
[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.]
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 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.552 0.321 0.475
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 2, 2010 at 7:41 am
And I’ve posted the preliminary NINO3.4 and Global SST anomalies for June:
If the last NINO was a super NINO like 97/98 then it was piss weak.
AMO is still in it’s warm phase.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/AMO.png
Despite the powers that be redefining what a year is, the global temps have been flatlining for over 10 years. If the AMO reacts negatively to the solar slumber the schmucks that masquerade as scientists these days are going come up with another ad-hoc hypothesis to explain the failure of the last ad-hoc hypothesis.
Dr Spencer
Able to see/detect anything yet on the Iceland Eyekull eruption temperature impact?
Jack Simmons says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:20 am
Somebody mentioned Pelosi earlier.
On the connection between jobs and legislation, she had this to say:
Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.
Nancy Pelosi
She sure has a way with numbers.
I’m feeling more confident about the future now with her in charge.
If in fact she did say that, then she’s reading into the future, inasmuch as there are only a bit more than 300 million Americans. I wonder where they’re hiding the other 200 million?
Tack onto that, the fact that only about 200 million people need employment, as the rest are minors, retirees, or those incarcerated.
So I dunno here. If 500 million Americans lose their jobs monthly, then they must be getting those jobs back and losing them in rapid-fire fashion!!
Musical jobs anyone?
There is about a 3 month lag between the ENSO and global temperatures so this June is still being affected by the March, 2010 El Nino.
The 2009-10 El Nino should be influencing the June 2010 TLT anomaly by about 0.08C above the trend.
The 1997-98 El Nino should have influenced the June 1998 TLT anomaly by about 0.10C above trend.
So June 1998 (0.562C) versus June 2010 (0.436C) should be close to comparable as far as the El Nino is concerned.
Let’s look at the other forcings and natural variability influences. Both periods are seeing the development of strong La Ninas. The AMO is about the same in the two periods (both periods are quite high). Solar forcing is about the same (despite the quiet Sun, total solar irradiance is about the same). There is no volcanic aerosols forcing in either period. Human aerosols are estimated to be about the same.
The only change is CO2/GHGs which should have increased temperatures by about 0.22C over this period.
But we have an ENSO-adjusted decline of 0.146C instead.
John Finn says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:42 am
899 says:
July 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Something doesn’t make sense here.
[Snip] ….
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
The numbers you posted are anomalies. Just because an anomaly is higher in one month than in the previous month doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually got warmer. Jan 2010 was a record high in the NH for UAH. This means it was wamrer than all other Januarys – it doesn’t mean January 2010 (0.860) was warmer than Sepember (0. 332) say.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your post.
The anomalous value didn’t happen for only one month, it was for several, and it stablised at the new higher level. Further, as I remarked earlier, that anomaly didn’t reflect itself for the other two regions in the same period of measurement.
899 says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:16 am
Taking the raw differences between the last four months of 2009, and the first four months of 2010, both the Global temps and NH temps took one heck of a jump.
Yes but this appears to be driven by cyclical SST’s. There is no reason to assume that the ocean cycles should follow the annual calender although they might in a noisy fashion.
THAT just doesn’t make sense, in the consideration of Dec., Jan., and Feb. being the coldest months for that part of the cycle for that part of the Globe.
Your confusing ocean cycles with seasonal variables. When you use anomalous perimeters the seasonal variables have been removed.
It therefore doesn’t matter what part of the year or what part of the globe you observe, you ask yourself what has caused the divergence from the base line of the anomaly.
The answer is a reasonably strong NINO and a warm AMO has contributed to the current warm global temperatures but the fact they have occurred at the beginning of the year is irrelevant.
They would have the same effect if they were in sync at any time of the year.
The shysters know that people in the northern hemisphere think this time of year should be cold and have deliberately misled them by using anomalous data and redefined what a year is.
Shame on them. They are a disgraceful bunch of spivs.
Dr Spencer
Why was the CHLT 1km removed from the discover page? (This showed a warming rate of 0.18C per year!)
Why has CH05 been replaced with a shorter record CH05 aqua?
Why has CH05 aqua data posted before July 1(?) been replaced with a modified set posted after July 10 (?)? Only small changes but there is no reference on the web site to changes being made.
CH05 Aqua on 17th June had 6 February 29ths in the last 8 yearsplus some temperatures showing 20C differences from normal. On the 18th June this had been corrected. Why was this error not referenced on the home page.
In the past other temperature indexes have been hauled over hot coals for having made such unannounced changes/corrections!
The removed chLT plot
[http://] img21.imageshack.us/img21/3427/amsre100617.png
The differences in CH05
[http://] img8.imageshack.us/img8/4640/amsuadjusments.png
Just curious as I am sure there are valid explanations
Thanks
\harry