UAH global temperature, up somewhat

UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for June, 2013: +0.30 deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

After 10 days in Michigan’s U.P. for my 40th high school reunion, here’s the belated monthly global temperature update.

We added two satellites to the processing, Metop-A starting in 2007 and NOAA-19 starting in 2009.

The resulting anomalies, which we will call Version 5.6, differ by as much as 0.04 deg. C from v5.5. You can read the details of the new processing here.

We are now making good progress on Version 6.0, which includes a variety of improvements in our processing procedures which have taken much more time than we anticipated.

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2013 is +0.30 deg. C (click for large version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2013_v5.6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2012 1 -0.145 -0.088 -0.203 -0.245

2012 2 -0.140 -0.016 -0.263 -0.326

2012 3 +0.033 +0.064 +0.002 -0.238

2012 4 +0.230 +0.346 +0.114 -0.251

2012 5 +0.178 +0.338 +0.018 -0.102

2012 6 +0.244 +0.378 +0.111 -0.016

2012 7 +0.149 +0.263 +0.035 +0.146

2012 8 +0.210 +0.195 +0.225 +0.069

2012 9 +0.369 +0.376 +0.361 +0.174

2012 10 +0.367 +0.326 +0.409 +0.155

2012 11 +0.305 +0.319 +0.292 +0.209

2012 12 +0.229 +0.153 +0.305 +0.199

2013 1 +0.497 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387

2013 2 +0.203 +0.372 +0.034 +0.195

2013 3 +0.200 +0.333 +0.068 +0.243

2013 4 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165

2013 5 +0.083 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112

2013 6 +0.298 +0.337 +0.259 +0.221

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
geran

Yeah, good catch UAH. Record cold in May and June, midwest plantings delayed, but our GOV SATs still see AGW.
Probably nothing funny going on here….

Stan

in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.
All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….

Stan

in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.
All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….

You are youngster Roy, my 50th is in Baltimore in September.

So temperatures are almost back to where they were last September.
It just shows how far they have dropped in the meantime.

noaaprogrammer

A little OT, but what’s this I here about some of our weather satellites needing replacement? Are there plans/funds for this?

‘UAH global temperature, up, some what’ well there is a surprise!.
AGU, Richard Alley and climate zombies!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck ]

Antarctic sea ice almost 2 standard deviations above the average. Seems less SH heat is being transported poleward. Which fits with our experience in Perth. No strong Southern Ocean low pressure systems so far this winter.

Stan

Increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991,http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795.

Bill Illis

I’ve taken the UAH lower [troposphere] temps and averaged them with RSS and then appended the HadAT (weather balloon) temps which are equivalent to the lower troposphere measure. This allows one to extend the record back to 1958.
Here are the temps then back to 1958 and my model of them.
http://s21.postimg.org/nn5u58k8n/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Model_June_2013.png
The warming which is left-over after one accounts for the ENSO, AMO, Volcanoes and Solar influences is just 0.057C per decade.
http://s2.postimg.org/js5m71ot5/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Warming_June_2013.png
And then the daily UAH version 5.6 temps going back to September 11, 2001. You are supposed to remember where you were when you saw the second plane arrive on the scene. This was nearly 12 years ago. The UAH trend since is a measely 0.024C per decade or just 10% of that forecast.
http://s23.postimg.org/kw8kkw1y3/Daily_UAH_5_6_2001_June_2013.png

Stan says:
July 9, 2013 at 3:16 pm

The warmist trolls are out in force today.
That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.

Gunga Din

Of course the crux of the issue is and always has been, “Did Man do it?”. “Can Man change it?”.
“What authority over the rest of us must ceded by the rest of us to prevent what only those who have authority to authority to gain perceive?”.
That the answer to the first two questions is i>promoted as “Yes” is why we have to deal with the the third question.
Those who are using CAGW as an avenue to power don’t want to leave it up to honest, unbiased science.

Stan

Philip Bradley says:
>> That link does not support your claim. <<
It's not my fault if you can't read.

Ragnaar

blackadderthe4th says:
AGU, Richard Alley and climate zombies!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck ]
I looked at the video. I estimated what his chart said which I assumed included landbased data based on the fact that he used the year 1957 as one of the early points. My estimate from his chart, based upon a low resolution viewing of it, is that we see a 1.33 Celsius increase per Century. I failed to see his point? This is just my opinion but I think he missed his target.

Didn’t take Stan long to resort to ad hominems. Seems to be all the warmists have left these days.

Max™

Not sure that is an ad hominem, I mean, it’s a pretty weak retort no doubt, but an ad hominem would be say… implying you disagree because you like Ke$ha (and are thus a terrible person) in an attempt to discredit your argument by “taking it to the man”, while suggesting you can’t read could technically fall in that class of logical fallacies, the irony inherent in using written language to insult the ability of another to read makes it seem like a compliment to even consider it as a full fledged ad hominem.

Stan

Philip Bradley says:
“Didn’t take Stan long to resort to ad hominems.”
This from the man who wrote, “The warmist trolls are out in force today.”
Can you read a scientific paper or not? So far, it appears not.

Max, lol. Even though I have no idea who Ke$ha is.

From The International Symposium on Sea Ice in a Changing Climate in Hobart from March 10 – 14, 2014
Changes in Antarctic sea ice extent are predicted under future climate change scenarios, although models for the 21st century show wide variability with a 25-40% decrease predicted.

Stan

Philip: You are avoiding the Fu et al paper, pg 795

The Engineer

Read somewhere that the land average for Denmark in June 2013 was -3,0 grader celcius.

You are avoiding the Fu et al paper, pg 795
Do I detect subtle irony here? Reading a 795 page paper would indeed be futile.

tobyglyn

forgetting the increased sea ice shouldn’t we be seeing accelerating warming, polar amplification and all that…?

‘Stan says:
July 9, 2013 at 3:16 pm
The warmist trolls are out in force today.
That link does not support your claim. This isn’t Real Climate. People actually check references here.”
Actually the link does. Last paragraph, page 795 left hand column.

geran

Steve/Stan–You might want to compare the “study” (1991) with reality (2013).
Nah, stick with the models….

Manfred

After the failure of UAH channel 5, is there still UAH data in UAH data ?

Thanks Steve, for that sensible response.
In fact the paper says sea ice thickness in the immediate vicinity of Antarctica increases. Says nothing about sea ice extent, as far as I can see.
I can’t cut and paste from the paper because its an old pdf.
And as I posted above, current models predict large decreases in Antarctic sea ice extent.
I still maintain the paper does not support Stan”s claim of ‘Increased Antarctic sea ice’.

J. Fujita

I am not well versed in the scientific work often referenced here but perusing the link that Stan provided I found this:
“In the G integration, in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration is increased with time, the thickness of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean is reduced markedly from 3 m t less than 1 m during the 100-year period… It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” p. 795
“In the D integration, in which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is decreased with time, the thickness of sea ice increases dramatically over the Arctic Ocean, but is reduced slightly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent. These changes of sea ice are opposite in sign from those of the G integration because the process involved is reversed as discussed in section 9a.” p. 795
However, in the conclusions…
“Obviously the credibility of the present study depends critically upon the ability of the present model to mimic the behavior of the actual ocean-atmosphere-land surface system… However, the surface flux adjustments of heat and water, which are needed to simulate the condition of the oceanic surface, are as large as those fluxes themselves. For example, the model tends to overestimate the precipitation in high latitudes and is partly responsible for the relatively large water flux adjustment needed there. It is possible that such a model bias results in the overestimation of the CO2-induced change of precipitation, and accordingly, the changes of near-surface salinity and thermohaline circulation. Further improvements…of the coupled model are urgently needed.” page 815
So, where does that leave us? An inquiring skeptic would like to know.

J. Fujita

Sorry for the repetition – it took me awhile to re-type the paragraphs.
It appears from Philip’s citing of current models only furthers the notion that good science requires constant updating. My question is – did the conclusions made in 1991 or any other prediction prove accurate because of good modeling or deriving a conclusion by working backwards. The fact that there are models with differing conclusions proves in itself that skepticism is warranted and believing in consensus is foolhardy.

The paper does say,
The equilibrium response (of surface air temperature) is particularly large along the coast of the Antarctic Continent, enhanced by the poleward retreat of sea ice
Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent.

bw

It does not matter what the models say. Models are not data.
On the real planet Earth the global lower troposphere does not actually vary by 0.2C in a month.
The UAH must have about that amount of jitter on that time scale. Some kind of error estimate should always be included in any and every measurement.
The real global UAH TLT is likely no different than it was in 1980

I originally raised Antarctic sea ice to stimulate a discussion about any relationship between sea ice extent, SH troposphere temperatures and intensity of Southern Ocean low pressure systems.
I’d expect increased sea ice to shift the tracks of low pressure systems northward, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. What appears to be happening, is weaker low pressure systems means less poleward heat transport allowing the sea ice to increase.
Is it the Southern Annular Mode?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SAM-what.shtml

Could some explain. UAH & RSS use satellites and measure something different than the land based GISS & HadCRUT. How do GISS & HadCRUT measure sea surface temperatures to come up with their “global” temp data? Do they use satellites to measure sea surface temp?

Good observation geran :

Yeah, good catch UAH. Record cold in May and June, midwest plantings delayed, but our GOV SATs still see AGW.
Probably nothing funny going on here….

I don’t know about the SH, but in the NH since last fall we have been have record colds–unbelievable. Well I guess no one does believe it because we keep getting anomalies above the 30 year mean. What I don’t believe is the anomalies as recorded from satellites. I think something is wrong with the data and it will be exposed in the near future because the data do not relate to what we are experiencing here on the ground and all the broken cold records and late springs and freezing Europe and China etc..it simply doesn’t fit.

Stan says: “in just 12 months the uah-LT 15-yr trend has increased from .06 C/decade to 0.12 C/dec.”
Of course you understand the reason for that, Stan. A 180-month trend of TLT anomalies ending in June 2012 starts in July 1997, so that trend includes the evolution and decay of the 1997/98 El Niño and ends with the aftereffects of the 2011/12 La Niña. And when you end the 180-month trend in June 2013, you’re starting your trend in July 1998, so you’ve lost the evolution and part of the decay of the 1997/98 El Niño and have ended the trend analysis in the aftereffects of an ENSO-neutral winter.
Even so, the most recent 180-month trend of 0.11 deg C/decade is much lower than the peak 180-month trend for the period ending in January 2007. The one ending in January 2007 was about 0.32 deg C/decade, Stan.
http://i44.tinypic.com/j92a7d.jpg
Stan says: “All that ocean heat was bound to come out sometime….”
Nonsense. You keep looking for the impact on TLT anomalies of that buildup in ocean heat at depths of 700-2000 meters, Stan. That’ll keep you busy for the next couple of decades, so that commenters here don’t have to respond to your nonsensical comments.
Adios

Stan

Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
Short-term trends (~15 years) fluctuate a great deal.
Yet I see them, or like them, being quoted all the time.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry-pick.

Gunga Din

Stan says:
July 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
Short-term trends (~15 years) fluctuate a great deal.
Yet I see them, or like them, being quoted all the time.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry-pick.

===================================================================
I know I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer here at WUWT, but did you really just say that you knew what you said was wrong but you repeated it because it sounded good?

Stan

I simply noted how quickly the 15-yr trend can change when ENSOs are involved. That should give you some clue about the claimed 17-years or less of no global warming (which of course is not true at all).

Manfred

Stan says:
July 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Of course I realize this, Bob Tisdale. It’s why I quoted it.
Live by the cherry-pick, die by the cherry pick.
————————————-
Yes, you had to cherry pick a 1991 paper to find “something” for a try to make a point on Antarctic sea ice. How did they run their model 32 years ago ? On a 386SX ?

Stan

The Manabe et al paper was certainly not a “cherry pick” — it is a scientific result, a prediction — and one that has come true.

Stan: I believe you missed my graph above showing the running 180-month trends.
http://i44.tinypic.com/j92a7d.jpg
They’re down from their peak in 2007.

Manfred, I think these trolls go to climate trolling classes and are given a list of stock responses to use. Which is why Stan couldn’t say where that paper supported his claim and why he was completely unaware it says the complete opposite of what he claimed.
Although the quality of trolls has markedly deteriorated recently. Big Green must have cut back on its trolling budget, and the lower pay just doesn’t attract quality candidates.

John F. Hultquist

noaaprogrammer says:
July 9, 2013 at 2:37 pm
“A little OT, but . . .”

The story you ask about appeared in numerous places back in Feb.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/weather-satellites-need-replacing-but-new-ones-may-take-years/

Stan

Of course they are down, Bob Tisdale.
And just a few short years ago, they were up, at 0.3 C/decade.
Where were you then?
Such short-term intervals fluctuate with the (oceanic) weather, and are not climatologically meaningful.
Yet they are quoted all the time. Unscientifically.
I think I have made my point.

Stan

>> Which is why Stan couldn’t say where that paper supported his claim <<
As Steven confirmed, and as I've repeated twice now, it is pg 795.
Did you find that passage, from the lower left-hand column to upper right-hand column?

Stan

They’re down from their peak in 2007.
And they are going back up.
Shades of 1997.
In any case, no metric that fluctuates so quickly can be a useful metric for global warming, which is a centuries/millenia-long phenomena.
So what is a better metric?

As I have already said, that just that there is localized thickening of the ice.
And to repeat myself,
The paper says,
The equilibrium response (of surface air temperature) is particularly large along the coast of the Antarctic Continent, enhanced by the poleward retreat of sea ice
Clearly their model predicts decreased Antarctic sea ice extent.

Stan

Philip, it’s like you can’t read.
Manabe et al, pg 795, top of right-hand column:
“…resulting in the increase of sea ice….”

Stan

Also see
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions
JINLUN ZHANG. J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4136.1