See also: RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second
Dec. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.18 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.
NEW 30-YEAR BASE PERIOD IMPLEMENTED!
Sorry for yelling like that, but if you have been following our global tropospheric temperature updates every month, you will have to re-calibrate your brains because we have just switched from a 20 year base period (1979 – 1998) to a more traditional 30 year base period (1981-2010) like that NOAA uses for climate “normals”.
This change from a 20 to a 30 year base period has 2 main impacts:
1) because the most recent decade averaged somewhat warmer than the previous two decades, the anomaly values will be about 0.1 deg. C lower than they used to be. This does NOT affect the long-term trend of the data…it only reflects a change in the zero-level, which is somewhat arbitrary.
2) the 30-year average annual cycle shape will be somewhat different, and more representative of “normal” of the satellite record than with 20 years; as a result, the month-to-month changes in the anomalies might be slightly less “erratic” in appearance. (Some enterprising person should check into that with the old versus new anomaly datasets).
Note that the tropics continue to cool as a result of the La Nina still in progress, and the Northern Hemisphere also cooled in December, more consistent with the anecdotal evidence. 
I will provide a global sea surface temperature update later today.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 2 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 3 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 4 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 5 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 6 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 7 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 8 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 9 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.180 0.213 0.147 -0.221
WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?
As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.
THE DISCOVER WEBSITE: NOAA-15 PROBLEMS STARTING IN MID-DECEMBER
For those tracking our daily updates of global temperatures at the Discover website, remember that only 2 “channels” can be trusted for comparing different years to each other, both being the only ones posted there from NASA’s Aqua satellite:
1) only ch. 5 data should be used for tracking tropospheric temperatures,
2) the global-average “sea surface” temperatures are from AMSR-E on Aqua, and should be accurate.
The rest of the channels come from the AMSU on the 12 year old NOAA-15 satellite, WHICH IS NOW EXPERIENCING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MISSING DATA AS OF AROUND DECEMBER 20, 2010. This is why some of you have noted exceptionally large temperature changes in late December. While we wait for NOAA to investigate, it seems like more than coincidence that the NOAA-15 AMSU status report had a December 17 notice that the AMSU scan motor position was being reported incorrectly due to a bit error.
The notice says that problem has been sporadic, but increasing over time as has the amount of missing data I have seen during my processing. At this early stage, I am guessing that the processing software cannot determine which direction the instrument is pointing when making its measurements, and so the data from the radiometer are not being processed.
The daily NOAA-15 AMSU imagery available at the Discover website shows that the data loss is much more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, which suggests that the temperature of the instrument is probably involved in the bit error rate. But at this point, this is all my speculation, based upon my past experience studying how the temperature of these instruments vary throughout the orbit as the solar illumination of the spacecraft varies.
UPDATE from Dr. Spencer(1/3/10, 2:50 p.m. CDT): Graph fixed…it was missing Dec. 2010.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Matt G says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
0.1C difference between 1998 and 2010 is about what this should be comparing the two different strength El Ninos. Therefore this also shows there has been little warming since this period.”
The UAH difference was 0.013, however the RSS difference was 0.039. See http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/rss-2010-was-second-warmest-after-1998.html#more
Lubos Motl would apparently agree to some extent with what you said based on UAH data, but not based on RSS data. At the above site, he says: “Because the 2009-2010 El Nino was just somewhat weaker than the 1997-1998 El Nino, the predicted annual mean temperature, according to the formula above, is exactly 0.30 °C cooler than the actual observed RSS annual mean temperature. This fact is both true for 1998 and 2010. So if you adjust the RSS temperatures for the El Nino index, there has been no noticeable extra warming or cooling from 1998.”
However let me just for argument sake take your value of 0.1 C warmth over the 12 years at face value. Over 100 years, this would be 0.8 C. When added to the 0.8 C that some say the earth has already warmed, this gives a total of 1.6 C in another 100 years. So IF you feel we should not reach 2 C, at this rate, it would take another 144 years. Would you still say it is urgent that we do something now?
“Mike Haseler says:
January 3, 2011 at 3:37 pm
The only thing I care about is whether the 10year average now has a downward trend!”
The answer is YES. See the green bar graphs at: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing%20global%20temperature%20estimates
In all five cases, the average anomaly for the last five years was lower than for the last ten years. THIS INCLUDES GISS!
Werner Brozek said…
“The answer is YES….In all five cases, the average anomaly for the last five years was lower than for the last ten years. THIS INCLUDES GISS!”
Hm. Too bad 10 years is not statistically significant.
Paul K2 says at January 3, 2011 at 3:30 pm :
“Since 1998 the amount of heat that has been absorbed into heat sinks (oceans, soils, ice caps, glaciers, and ice sheets) exceeds the amount of heat need to raise the global temperature anomaly 0.10 deg C in that timeframe, by roughly a 200 to 1 ratio.”
Ummm…so enough to raise the global average temperature by 200 x 0.10 K = 20 K, in a little over 10 years? [I prefer K to deg C.] Eyebrows are raised extremely high — that’s an awful lot of energy, and such a claim requires quantitative backup which is not present in your post. Last time I looked, SST trend was ~0.15 K/decade, so if you said 0.2 K since 1998 it would be in the right ballpark. But not 100 times that.
I realize you’re including energy which went into ice melt, but that’s not very large compared to the entire earth’s heat capacity. Do the math, and post your results.
Werner Brozek,
I too am interested in the direction in which temps are going. I suggest you keep a copy of these graphs just in case the record keepers need to “adjust” over the next few years when the cycles point to a general cooling.
Whatever these graphs show they don’t show what the warmers told us to expect; a gradual increase in step with CO2 emissions. Clearly they don’t.
I also note that R.Gates is claiming an increase in temps in the Artic, where there are few temp stations. He ignores the decrease in temps in the Antarctic of a similar magnitude. Balance? He also refers to the natural cycles hiding the AGW increase. Of course natural cycles were unimportant until recently and now they might be the major driver of climate changes. Who’d -a -thought?
I hear some readers comparing 1998 El Nino to 2010’s. Yet I hear no one speaking about AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) which was set to record highs in the beginning of the year. AMO has also been trending upwards since 1970’s and the trend has continued in the 2000’s. Also PDO made a short spike at the start of year.
Those two factors (and more) combined, its no miracle 2010’s is almost as warm as 1998 record El Nino year.
John Kehr says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I got the +0.18C up @ur momisugly January 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 am….
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/uah-temperature-for-december-of-2010
But you were using the old baseline – so you were quite a bit out (~0.1 deg). Note the ‘drop’ from November to December is only ~0.1 deg not 0.2 deg as you posted.
Rob Honeycutt 10:36pm:
“Hm. Too bad 10 years is not statistically significant.”
10 years’ data of global warming was all Dr Hansen had when he set in motion the train of events that led to the formation of the IPCC.
“richard verney says:
What appears to have happened is that there was a significant step change brought about by the 1998 El Nino which has increased the UAH variation by about 0.3C. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and the reasons behind such step change”
If the amount f heat in the oceans/seas is constant it is very easy to have big swings in sea surface and air temperature, just by changing currents. Place the hot water heat wide and flat and you get global heating, make it narrow and long you get global cooling.
The changes in the ice on the poles suggests that sensible heat is being removed from the southern oceans and placed in the north.
Actually getting a temperature range of plus/minus one degree in the Earths water systems is close to being steady state as one could get, with a max and min of -25 t0 +37 °C
DaveF says:
“10 years’ data of global warming was all Dr Hansen had when he set in motion the train of events that led to the formation of the IPCC.”
That not true. He had 100+ years of temperature reconstructions to base his conclusions on.
Rob Honeycutt says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:42 am
“That not true. He had 100+ years of temperature reconstructions to base his confusions on.” You had a spelling error, so I fixed it for you.
“If one looks at the UAH plot, the anomaly was fairly flat at about -0.1C between 1979 and 1997 and following the 1998 El Nino, it has remained fairly flat at about +0.2C.
What appears to have happened is that there was a significant step change brought about by the 1998 El Nino which has increased the UAH variation by about 0.3C. Does anyone have any thoughts on this and the reasons behind such step change.”
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=20&month=12&year=2010
Perhaps—
“Earth’s stratosphere is as clear as it’s been in more than 50 years. University of Colorado climate scientist Richard Keen knows this because he’s been watching lunar eclipses. “Since 1996, lunar eclipses have been bright, which means the stratosphere is relatively clear of volcanic aerosols.”
“This is timely and important because the state of the stratosphere affects climate; a clear stratosphere “lets the sunshine in” to warm the Earth below. At a 2008 SORCE conference Keen reported that “The lunar eclipse record indicates a clear stratosphere over the past decade, and that this has contributed about 0.2 degrees to recent warming.”
Just a thought
Rob Honeycutt says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Werner Brozek said…
“The answer is YES….
Hm. Too bad 10 years is not statistically significant.”
Fair enough. However you cannot look at the last ten years in isolation. See page 21 at the following:
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
There are huge ocean cycles that form a sine wave every 60 years. And right now, we are at the point where we were in the 1950s where things were getting cooler for a few decades and some thought there would be an ice age in the 1970s.
P.S. Lawrie: Is there more than one group that does adjustments?
Werner Brozek says:
“There are huge ocean cycles that form a sine wave every 60 years. And right now, we are at the point where we were in the 1950s where things were getting cooler for a few decades and some thought there would be an ice age in the 1970s.”
I’m sorry but that link presents a paper with a very fundamental error. The tropospheric hotspot is a signature of warming regardless of the source of warming, and we’ve clearly had warming over the past 30 years. Remember the saying “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
So, this Dr Evans is claiming there is warming and no hotspot so that just doesn’t jive. Sorry but this paper would never make it through peer review. It’s also heavily laden with acrimonious language that should never appear in a scientific paper. You know how annoyed Anthony gets at people for using the term “denier” on his blog? A 26 page paper that uses the term “alarmist” 16 times… To me that suggests the paper is far from reliable.
I will read the paper in full but first perusal is raising numerous red flags.
Lawrie Ayres says:
January 4, 2011 at 12:36 am
Whatever these graphs show they don’t show what the warmers told us to expect; a gradual increase in step with CO2 emissions. Clearly they don’t.
NK says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The UAH data does not validate the GISS/IPCC models and is badly correlated to atmospheric CO2 levels. one thing that CAN’T be deduced is that CO2 drives world-wide temps and AGW will have catatrophic consequesnces. (sic)
DaveF says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:06 am
Rob Honeycutt 10:36pm:
10 years’ data of global warming was all Dr Hansen had when he set in motion the train of events that led to the formation of the IPCC.
________________________________________
Ha ha, well, 2 things. 1 – CO2 levels ought to eventually correlate with a stable equilibrium temperature, not induce some odd in-step straight temperature increase with no variation from other causes; and 2 – correlation of CO2 and temperature were never the basis for the theory of GW, it was the physics of it.
What Hansen has NOT done, is acknowledge problems with the temperature data source. As a scientist, his conclusions are in question if siting problems are not considered in the numbers he uses. I do not want to hear that he has “adjusted” for that, as it compounds the errors. So does “smoothing” ( especially at 1200 km scales ). He has shown HOW he does his adjustment, but no justification as to WHY he has made those adjustments to specific station data. What rational is there for adjusting older temperatures colder and newer ones warmer if not to fit a preconception? This is not good science, but good propaganda. It should be obvious to anyone that Hansen clearly has an agenda, and it is not a good one.
David Ball says:
“It should be obvious to anyone that Hansen clearly has an agenda, and it is not a good one.”
That is quite an amazing leap of logic that, seems to me, more fits the conclusion that you want to come to. It seems to me that when you look at all the data sets together, adjusted for their different baselines, you get an astonishing consistent picture. I’m not sure where the agenda is.
Honestly, this is why I love science. Regardless of your agenda, or my agenda, or Hansen’s agenda… the data are going to tell us the truth. I give kudos to all the scientists involved in this issue – Hansen, Santer, Spencer and Christy, alike – because ultimately they are all looking for the same answer. The right answer.
Rob Honeycutt says:
January 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The leap is yours. A guy who gets arrested trying to stop the “death trains” is going to give you his unbiased opinion. Oookaaayy, ….. If you love science as you claim, explain Hansen’s “adjustments” for us all. His “adjustments” are in the wrong direction regarding UHI. That is some AWESOME science there boyo. Want some more?
I like also how you avoided answering any of my queries. Please correct in future.
I have absolutely had it with these sheltered academics. If civilization ever collapsed, as they seem to be pushing towards, they would be screwed, blued and tattooed. Majority couldn’t hammer a nail if their lives depended on it. Pull your head out of your arse and remember what David Hoffer said on this very blog; “mankind has spent his entire existence trying to keep the outdoors out. Now they want to let the outdoors in”. WUWT? Come do some winter camping (sans modern gear) and we’ll see how long any of you “outdoorsy” types last.
David Ball… If Hansen choses to protest something he believes is wrong or bad that is a personal decision separate from any science he does. You could argue that his political views affect his scientific work and you might be right. But the way science works is that wrong answers are eventually filtered out. They will not fit the data as they unfold. This is the fundamental element of science that has taken modern society to where it is today. Science removes inherent human biases in favor of physical reality.
Whether a scientist could survive winter camping (though many of them do it for a living) or could hammer a nail (though many are master carpenters) has no bearing on the science they produce.
Again, I point you to all four temperature data sets. Here.
Please show me the bias. I honestly do not see it.
Actually, here is a cleaned up version. I added a 12 month mean to the figures to reduce the noise.
David Ball… With regards to your inquiries, you’re setting up a no-win. If Hansen adjusts you ding him. If he doesn’t adjust you’d ding him. Do you apply the same logic to Dr Spencer when he adjusts his data. He obviously has done exactly that in this very post. Changing from a 20 year baseline to a 30 year baseline.
Ultimately the results will play out among the various data sets. Each group has their rationale for managing their data the way they choose. All the groups adjust their data when warranted. If one of them is “cooking the books” in any manner then they are going to be the anomalous data set and suspect. It’s a kind of checks and balances system.
Personally, I trust the scientific method and I trust all these scientists are doing their work as they best see fit. In the end the physical reality of climate will be very clear.
“Rob Honeycutt says:
January 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Please show me the bias. I honestly do not see it.”
NASA released data showing that, globally, November 2010 was the warmest on record.”
However is this value skewed? See the attached set of graphs showing how the four major data sets, which includes two satellite sets, compare with each other: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/2010temperatureanomalies.png
GISS says November 2010 was the warmest November on record. The other three disagree.
GISS says 2010 may be the warmest year on record. The other three disagree.
GISS says July and August had lower anomalies than October and November according the graphs. The other three disagree.
By the way, the November Hadcrut3 number is not on this graph, but it was 0.431.
See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/hadcrut3-2010-will-be-2nd-5th-warmest.html
A quote from the above:
“It just happens that since the ClimateGate, Jones’ team is indicating a much lower warming trend than Hansen’s team: Phil Jones’ HadCRUT3 dataset is attributing November 2010 the coolest rating among Novembers and among the four datasets – with a 0.43 °C global anomaly, it was the 7th warmest November – while the GISS dataset says that November 2010 was the warmest November on record.
The satellite datasets sit in between: November 2010 was 3rd for UAH and 6th for RSS.”
I am impressed that you are so trusting of the fox guarding your henhouse. I’m just not that trusting. It is strange that the scholars I know are a LOT different than the scholars you seem to know. Anyway, it is really funny to see you guys spinning so furiously. You blame the skeptics for the sea change in public opinion, yet it is the hoisting by ones own petard that has been your undoing. The “we predicted this all along” is hilarious !! I welcome the judgement of history, as you do. It would be difficult to accept that one has been made useful, but one of us most assuredly has.