UAH global temperature, down slightly for November 2012

UAH v5.5 Global Temperature Update for November 2012: +0.28 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

After my extended trip to the West Coast, I am finally posting the global temperature update (sorry for the delay).

Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2012 is +0.28 deg. C (click for large version):

The hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for 2012 are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 1 -0.134 -0.065 -0.203 -0.256

2012 2 -0.135 +0.018 -0.289 -0.320

2012 3 +0.051 +0.119 -0.017 -0.238

2012 4 +0.232 +0.351 +0.114 -0.242

2012 5 +0.179 +0.337 +0.021 -0.098

2012 6 +0.235 +0.370 +0.101 -0.019

2012 7 +0.130 +0.256 +0.003 +0.142

2012 8 +0.208 +0.214 +0.202 +0.062

2012 9 +0.339 +0.350 +0.327 +0.153

2012 10 +0.333 +0.306 +0.361 +0.109

2012 11 +0.281 +0.301 +0.262 +0.172

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Werner Brozek

2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for October at 0.518, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.526 + 0.531 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.516 + 0.518)/10 = 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 puts 2008 in 14th place.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months. NOTE: WFT is down at the moment so I can only give you the latest I have.
1. UAH: since September 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to October)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) But see * below.
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 11 months (goes to October.)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.66/trend
*In light of the importance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. If you hate nit picky stuff, just ignore this part. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years.

D Böehm

Well, this news just about kills any possible chance that the alarmist crowd can claim any global warming over the past 16 years.
BTW, the Wood For Trees site has been down for a couple of days. Anyone know anything about that?

DaveW

I’m sure it’s just me, but reporting anomalies seems to lose information about the data set. In this case, I don’t know what the base value is (I could look it up), so I really don’t know the magnitude of the anomaly. Is it ~0.2 % of the base number? What is its relative magnitude?
This prevents the reader from really understanding the problem. I understand the convienence for the cognizant, but showing anomalies to civilians or (gasp) politicians can really bias their perspective.

D.I.

What is the temperature of 0.0 on this graph?
I see many graphs with 0.0 but they never seem to state what 0.0 refers to,without a reference to 0.0 they all seem meaningless.
Is this some sort of secret code of the Experts?
Enlighten me, please!.
REPLY: It is an anomaly graph, where zero represents the baseline period normal – Anthony

D Böehm

D.I.,
Good question. The alarmist crowd likes to use 0.1ºC increments because it makes the y-axis look scary, when it is just a small temperature fluctuation.
Here is a chart with a normal y-axis. Not so scary, eh?

And as I always try to provide on these posts, here’s a link to the Novermber 2012 sea surface temperature anomaly update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/november-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Weekly NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies are approaching zero.

D Böehm says: Here is a chart with a normal y-axis. Not so scary, eh?
JK: Of course that zero is still somewhat arbitrary. Why not start the chart at absolute zero?
Thanks
Jk

Climate Weenie

When will the UAH MSU analysis software update be implemented?

D.I.

Thanks for the replies,Anthony said, “It is an anomaly graph, where zero represents the baseline period normal”
What is the ‘normal’?,why do these graphs not show it?
If I was to draw a graph at school with no ‘Legend’ It would be a ‘Fail’.
Thanks D Boehm,the X,Y, Scam I am aware of but not the 0.0 with no reference.
Thank you for replying.

richardscourtney

Climate Weenie:
At December 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm you ask
When will the UAH MSU analysis software update be implemented?

D Böehm

D.I.,
You might be interested in this chart. They lie with charts by using the zero baseline trick.
Study the bottom two charts in the link for a minute or two, and you will see how they show a scary acceleration in temperature. But it isn’t real, it is an artifact of a zero baseline chart. The trend line chart at the bottom shows reality: the globe is warming steadily along its long term warming trend line, with no recent acceleration.
NOAA, GISS, and the other government agencies constantly use zero baseline charts to fool the eye into believing that there has been recent acceleration in global warming. But that is wrong, as the past sixteen years of no warming confirm.

richardscourtney

Climate Weenie:
At December 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm you ask

When will the UAH MSU analysis software update be implemented?

Please specify the software update which you think is needed and why,
Richard

D.I.

Thank you for your replies,
Anthony said “It is an anomaly graph, where zero represents the baseline period normal”.
But what is the ‘Normal’? It’s no good drawing Graphs if some of the Information is missing,If I drew a graph when I was at school without a ‘Legend’ it would be a Fail.
Thanks D Boehm,I am aware of the X,Y,Scam and I see it is applied to many a Graph, but this so called ‘non-reference’ to 0.0 really gets me down,as a ‘layman’ that is.
Thanks again for your Input on this.

pochas

DaveW says:
December 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm
“I’m sure it’s just me, but reporting anomalies seems to lose information about the data set. In this case, I don’t know what the base value is (I could look it up), so I really don’t know the magnitude of the anomaly. Is it ~0.2 % of the base number? What is its relative magnitude?”
I agree. There ought to be a constitutional amendment that requires all anomaly graphs to state the value of the baseline in decimal notation.

A Crooks

You don’t need to apologize for the delay in posting. I guess we all know that if there is a delay – there will be cooling.
Cheers

Anomalies of anything are just to judgmental for my taste. I have spent my professional life chasing them. I understand why and how they are used too. These climate types need this since they seem fixated on trying to reduce the entire globe to one number which is in effect meaningless. If we use some fixed base then at least everyone, in theory, is speaking the same language. Oh were so to, but in reality it is not.

D.I.

Thanks D Böehm,
I am well aware of the Skull-duggery of the so called ‘Graphs’ with just that little bit ‘Missing’, i.e. ‘Legend’, no reference to Baseline ect, but for so called Scientists to put out Graphs with no full explanation is (In my opinion), a disgrace.
Thanks for links.

geran

“After my extended trip to the West Coast, I am finally posting the global temperature update (sorry for the delay).”
Okay, just don’t let it happen again!
Seriously, thank you Dr Spencer for this great effort. Folks like you and WUWT keep us tuned to reality. In Alabaman–“Y’all is deeply appreciated.”

D.I.

Thanks to all who responded to my original request,
so what Is 0.0 on the Graph and who determined it?

John W. Garrett

Thank you, as always, Dr. Spencer.
As mentioned earlier, the “Wood For Trees” site is not on-line. In combination with the UAH temperature graph, over the years, I have found it to be an extremely valuable tool to illustrate some of the fallacies of the CAGW claims.
Is there any word on WFT’s status ???

Mike Clark

Werner, Its guys like you, Anthony, and quite a few others who keep me from feeling like there might be something wrong with me. Your kind of analysis of this data can be used to refute the nonsense of CO2 induced warming. Thank you for tying it all up in an easy to understand analysis.

Bill Illis

Time again, for the semi-regular update of the Climate Model forecasts versus the actual climate observations.
Still looking pretty poor and now temps are on the way down again.
http://s12.postimage.org/kbtrs0oul/IPPC_vs_Obs_Nov_12.png

Neville

While we wait for WFTs to return perhaps people would like to try Prof. Ole Humlum’s climate 4 you.
http://climate4you.com/

I don’t know the temperature from where this data set is taken, but for surface temperature anomalies the 0.0 is approximately 288 Kelvin.

ossqss

Should a perpetually warming planet ever have a monthly temp anomaly below normal over a 33 year period like it did last year for a couple months and the year prior ?
Feb-April will prove interesting this year…..
Thanks Dr. Spencer for all you do!
Nice summary also Werner Brozek !

John West

The base period normal is not a number, it’s a number for each locale. The absolute temperature for the relative of 0.0 for Raleigh is different than for Orlando.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/noaa’s-1981–2010-us-climate-normals-overview

DI, this is what Dr Spencer said last month.
Differences with RSS over the Last 2 Years
Many people don’t realize that the LT product produced by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems has anomalies computed from a different base period for the average annual cycle (1978-1998) than we use (1981-2010). They should not be compared unless they are computed about the same annual cycle.
If the anomalies for both datasets are computed using the same base period (1981-2010), the comparison between UAH and RSS over the last couple of years looks like this:
Note that the UAH anomalies have been running, on average, a little warmer than the RSS anomalies for the last couple of years.

GlynnMhor

DI asks: “What is the ‘normal’?,why do these graphs not show it?”
The zero is not so much a ‘normal’ as being the average over a given time period, a period that varies depending on the dataset being examined.
Rather than try to show changes of the average of the temperature over time, the graphs instead show the average of the changes in temperature.
So in principle if a given station shows an increase of 0.1 degrees compared to the average of that station from 1900-2000, or from 1960-1990, or whatever, then this 0.1 is included when the anomalies are averaged. Another station might show a decrease of 0.2 degrees, and that is what is averaged.
In practice, adjustments are made based on various assumptions, some of which might be dubious.

thelastdemocrat

I agree that a temp anomaly chart should never be published, posted, or otherwise broadcast without a note providing the baseline period, such as “Baseline = 1980-1990 avg.” It is unscientific. If I ever use data from elsewhere, I add that info. I have no idea why otherwise scientifically-minded skeptics fail to do this.

Darren Potter

D Böehm says: “Here is a chart with a normal y-axis. Not so scary, eh?”
Flatline. Somebody pronounce it. AGW is dead. Time of death 12-12-2012
The AGW debate is OVER! 🙂

Werner Brozek

garymount says:
December 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm
I don’t know the temperature from where this data set is taken, but for surface temperature anomalies the 0.0 is approximately 288 Kelvin.
That would be the average, although July is about 2 C warmer than January even though Earth is closest to the sun around January 4. The reason is because the land heats up faster than the ocean, despite being further away in July. See AQUA05.
P.S. Thank you Mike and ossqss!

Werner Brozek

ossqss says:
December 12, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Should a perpetually warming planet ever have a monthly temp anomaly below normal over a 33 year period like it did last year for a couple months and the year prior ?
There are at least three factors involved here:
1. The satellite data show more variation than the surface data for El Ninos and La Ninas.
2. The base period is very important. So if the base is 1950 to 1980 instead of 1980 to 2010, then you are more likely to get negative numbers with the later base period.
3. If you do get negative numbers in 2012 with the base period of 1980 to 2010, then it goes to show the warming is not all that catastrophic.
4. Others?

Michael Schaefer

Even my Eyeball Mark I-sensor can detect a wonderful underlying Sine wave with a 23-year-wavelength in the Graph Willis depicts here.
The low point of the Sine wave was around 1987, while the high crest of the Sine wave went by in 2010.
Today, the Sine Wave is definitely on a downswing again, to bottom out 23 years after 2010, i.e. in 2033.

Kasuha

DaveW says:
I don’t know what the base value is
_______________________________________________
There are two ways how to look at anomalies:
1/ calculate average temperature for each month for each place on Earth separately, then calculate anomaly (difference) from that average. You get an anomaly value for each place on Earth. When you calculate average of these you get what’s in the graph. Base value or difference from base have no sense in that case because the average anomaly is not representative for any particular place on the earth except for places where it matches local anomaly by accident and these have way different immediate base values.
2/ calculate average temperature for the whole Earth, then calculate average value for each month over time and calculate anomaly (graph value) by subtracting the month’s average value from month’s immediate value. In this case the base value has some sense except that it does not represent any particular place on Earth. Percentual difference differs based on whether you calculate it in Celsius or Kelvin.
In general these two appoaches are equivalent (in the sense that they provide the same values for anomaly).
Base values (annual cycle) using approach 2/ can be found on UAH data site http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/

Alex the skeptic

Where I live, and it’s more or less the same thing all over the planet, temperature changes, summer maximums – winter minimums flactuate some 35C: We sweat it out in summer and then switch on the heaters so as not to freeze in winter.
I say, should we be worried about a rise of 0.25C in the the global average temp?. Surely the end-of-the-world 4C rise scare is off, the temp seems to have settled at just an irrelevant fraction of a degree above the invented average, with the possibility (probability?) of a cold Maunder-like phase in the offing, according to solar scientists. I prefer the positive anomaly rather than the negative one solar scientists are predicting. Hope they’re wrong, but considering the current freeze in Europe, the fourth year in a row, they may just be correct…brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Stephen Richards

It’s december !! Christmas comes and along with all the fraudulent announcements of the warmest year evah evah evah !!!!!

NotTheAussiePhilM

D.I. says:
December 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Thanks to all who responded to my original request,
so what Is 0.0 on the Graph and who determined it?
Immediately below the graph it says:
“The hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for 2012 are:”
This seems pretty clear, and easy to understand
– if I had a student in class who repeatedly couldn’t read or understand what was in front of them, I would have given them a fail!

Michael Schaefer

…and it is, of course, Dr. Roy Spencer’s graph and NOT Willis Eschenbach’s!
MY BAD!

Gee peeps have short memories. 0.0 baseline was the first year of satellite data which was 1978. Therefore +0.281 means that the global satellite temperature for November 2012 is +0.281 degrees higher then November 1978.

Richard M

If one follows the link at the top of this article to Spencer’s site you will see the chart with the following sentence immediately under it:
“The hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for 2012 are:”

Steve B says:
December 13, 2012 at 2:58 am
Gee peeps have short memories. 0.0 baseline was the first year of satellite data which was 1978.
Unfortunately that isn’t true. The baseline is the average of 1980 to 2010.

John Finn

harrywr2 says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:53 am

Steve B says:
December 13, 2012 at 2:58 am
Gee peeps have short memories. 0.0 baseline was the first year of satellite data which was 1978.

Unfortunately that isn’t true. The baseline is the average of 1980 to 2010.
Actually it’s the mean of 1981 to 2010.

D.I.

NotTheAussiePhilM says:
Immediately below the graph it says:
“The hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for 2012 are:”
This seems pretty clear, and easy to understand
– if I had a student in class who repeatedly couldn’t read or understand what was in front of them, I would have given them a fail!
So what’s your guess at 0.0?

Kasuha

D.I. says:
December 13, 2012 at 11:21 am
So what’s your guess at 0.0?
____________________________________
0.0 is average Earth’s temperature over 1980-2010 calculated separately for each month.

SteveB

No. 0.0 degree anomaly is 1978. There is no averaging at all e.g. Check the instances where anomalies are -ve. You cannot get a -ve average

John Finn

SteveB says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm
No. 0.0 degree anomaly is 1978. There is no averaging at all e.g. Check the instances where anomalies are -ve. You cannot get a -ve average

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about, but if you simply look at the UAH graph above it shows you are mistaken. The 1978/79 anomalies are about -0.2 to -0.3 deg C. The Satellite record began in December 1978.
The anomaly for Dec 78 was -0.28. You seem to be suggesting that Dec 78 was -0.28 deg C cooler than Dec 78.
UAH calculate anomalies relative to the 1981-2010 base period. Ask Roy spencer.

Werner Brozek

SteveB says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm
No. 0.0 degree anomaly is 1978.
Check the graph. The first entry is at about -0.26 for 1979.
Or check:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The first number says -0.28 for December 1978.

James at 48

ENSO has rapidly snapped back rapidly to Neutral. Crazy stuff.

D.I.

So can anyone tell me what 0.0 represents as a temperature on this Graph?
A simple question to my teachers but no definitive answer.
‘NotTheAussiePhilM’ is a fail on his reply on his ‘It’s obvious’ duck out.
I need to know what 0.0 actually is as a temperature otherwise the graph to me and many other ‘Laymen’ is pointless.
It’s no good saying It’s an anomaly Graph of temperatures around the globe unless the Graph states what it is anomalous to,and gives a reference to 0.0.
Is this understood?

SteveB

I can’t remember when I first downloaded UAH data but I specically remember that the readme file said that the first year was the baseline.
I just read the readme file for the first time since 2005 and saw that now they use a 30 year running mean. So I am obviously wrong. So all I can say now is that the satellite temperature data that we are given is totally useless. Running means are useless since there is loss of data.