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
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.
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.
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.
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! 🙂
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!
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?
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.
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/
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.
It’s december !! Christmas comes and along with all the fraudulent announcements of the warmest year evah evah evah !!!!!
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!
…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.
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.
harrywr2 says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:53 am
Unfortunately that isn’t true. The baseline is the average of 1980 to 2010.
Actually it’s the mean of 1981 to 2010.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
ENSO has rapidly snapped back rapidly to Neutral. Crazy stuff.
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?
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.